Archive for the ‘Islamic jihad’ category

Center Field: Palestinian terrorism plus Western appeasement equals today’s Islamist

December 9, 2015

Center Field: Palestinian terrorism plus Western appeasement equals today’s Islamist, Jerusalem Post, Gil Troy, December 8, 2015

ShowImage (18)A Palestinian stone-thrower looks on as he stands in front of a fire during clashes with IDF troops in the West Bank village of Duma. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Most academics today are too politically correct to admit it – and too busy boycotting democratic Israel. But when future historians connect the dots to explain the origins of al-Qaida, Islamic State and today’s scourge of Islamist terrorism, the pattern will be undeniable. Yasser Arafat was the grandfather of Osama bin Laden and all modern terrorists. Moreover, Western appeasement of Palestinian terrorism – cravenly displayed at Munich – proved that claiming “terrorism doesn’t pay” is delusional: terrorism works thanks to Western weakness. Violence put the Palestinians on the international agenda and cast them as the ultimate oppressed Third Worlders to many totalitarian leftists – who today exaggerate Palestinians’ suffering, importance and impotence.

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

Last Tuesday, two widows of the Israeli Olympians murdered at Munich in 1972 revealed that the eight Palestinian terrorists beat the hostages who survived their initial assault. The attackers also shot Yossef Romano when he resisted, then castrated him. These horrifying details, sandwiched between the Paris massacre and the San Bernadino bloodbath, amid the latest wave of Palestinian violence, reinforced a fact that terrorist- deniers and Palestinian apologists deny: The world’s tolerance for Palestinian terrorism, starting in the 1970s, made it the gateway crime to Islamist terrorism – understanding a gateway crime as both evil and trailblazing, normalizing. As one friend cleverly noted: “ The suicide vest found in the garbage bin in Paris might as well have had ‘Made in Palestine’ stitched on it. Guess that’s a label the European Union lets into the continent.”

Most academics today are too politically correct to admit it – and too busy boycotting democratic Israel. But when future historians connect the dots to explain the origins of al-Qaida, Islamic State and today’s scourge of Islamist terrorism, the pattern will be undeniable. Yasser Arafat was the grandfather of Osama bin Laden and all modern terrorists. Moreover, Western appeasement of Palestinian terrorism – cravenly displayed at Munich – proved that claiming “terrorism doesn’t pay” is delusional: terrorism works thanks to Western weakness. Violence put the Palestinians on the international agenda and cast them as the ultimate oppressed Third Worlders to many totalitarian leftists – who today exaggerate Palestinians’ suffering, importance and impotence.

In September 1972, the International Olympic Committee president, Avery Brundage, became the sniveling symbol of Western appeasement. More protective of his games than the kidnapped athletes, he allowed the Olympics to continue for 10 hours as the Palestinians tortured the Israelis. Then, after the terrorists murdered the hostages and one German policeman during Germany’s botched rescue attempt, Brundage insisted the games continue after a short 24-hour pause. One Los Angeles Times columnist wrote: “It’s almost like having a dance at Dachau.”

The Olympic Committee has never commemorated the murdered Israelis with a moment of silence (although one is planned for 2016), hoping not to “politicize” the games, meaning anger Arabs and Muslims.

Barely two months after this debacle, West Germany used a false hijacking ruse to free the three surviving terrorists. In return, the PLO promised not to attack Germany. In 1999, one terrorist, Jamal al-Gashey, boasted: “I am proud of what I did at Munich because it helped the Palestinian cause enormously. Before Munich the world had no idea about our struggle, but on that day the name of Palestine was repeated all over the world.” In September 1970, Palestinian terrorists hijacked planes and destroyed them in Jordan, but Munich became their big international premier.

Six months after Munich, on March 1, 1973, America – under a supposedly tough Republican Richard Nixon – caved despite losing two diplomats in a Palestinian raid against the Saudi embassy in Khartoum. The two Americans, Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, along with a Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, were the only hostages murdered – after Yasser Arafat sent the terrorists a coded radio message, asking: “Why are you waiting? The people’s blood in the Cold River cries for vengeance.” “Cold River” was the pre-arranged code for “kill them.”

The Sudanese soon freed all eight terrorists and the Americans never hunted down these killers. Less than two years later, in November, 1974, Arafat addressed the UN General Assembly. Two decades after that, this unrepentant murderer of Americans would win the Nobel Peace, be the most frequent foreign guest Bill Clinton hosted at the White House and bring his people to the brink of a peace treaty and their own state, only to lead them back to terrorism, delegitimization and cries to exterminate the Jewish state.

The Palestinians chose well in targeting Israel, especially during the 1970s. Directing terrorism against the Jewish state triggered decades of blaming the victims and excusing the perpetrators. The anti-Semitic hostility so many Westerners have toward Israel, the Jew among the nations, reinforced the growing post-Sixties culture of Western guilt, self-abnegation, appeasement and enabling of violent enemies – as long as they could define themselves as people of color. Radicals cast democratic Israel, forced to defend itself, as an imperial force not an embattled state, while casting Palestinian terrorists as freedom fighters not pathological killers.

Rather than noting how few peoples suffering far more turn terrorist, rather than wondering why Palestinians targeted innocent women, children, elders, Blame Israel Firsters assumed that Palestinians’ cruelty somehow reflected Israeli cruelty. Israel must be very guilty of intense oppression to merit such hatred, the politically correct assumed, rather than scrutinizing the Palestinian death cult that fed off anti-Semitism and Islamic fundamentalism.

Arafat’s success and the West’s limp response helped weaponize an exclusivist, bigoted, triumphalist Islamist ideology, inspiring al-Qaida, Islamic State and others.

Even today, President Barack Obama hesitates to label terrorism terrorism and dodges the phrase “radical Islamism” – even when a jihadist major shot up Fort Hood in 2009 or a San Bernardino shooter posted an IS manifesto. True, Obama has hunted some terrorists aggressively, but his ideological confusion has emboldened terrorists – and reflects this broader international muddle in facing evil.

If I were Palestinian or Muslim, I would be ashamed. So far, the great Palestinian contribution to civilization has been terrorism; “Palestinian” as a modifier most frequently appears before the word “terrorism” – 32 million times, a Google search shows. The phrase “Islamic terrorism” appears 201 million times. Don’t they want to be known for constructive contributions? Without a robust internal critique, among Palestinians, among Muslims, terrorism will continue. Golda Meir’s aphorism needs updating. Yes, Palestinians must love their children more than they hate our own before peace comes. And Palestinians must also become terrified of being considered terrorists.

Canadian Islamic School Linked to Calif. Shooter, ISIS Recruits

December 9, 2015

Canadian Islamic School Linked to Calif. Shooter, ISIS Recruits, Clarion Project, December 9, 2015

(Islamist “feminism.” — DM)

Hashmi-Malik-HPSan Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik (left) and founder of the Al-Huda network of schools Farhat Hashmi.

The Al-Huda Institute in Mississauga, Ontario is one of a chain of 200 Al-Huda schools in the U.S., Canada and Pakistan. Founded in 1994 by an ultra-conservative female Islamic scholar, Farhat Hashmi, its ideology is said to have spread like a social movement in North America and around the world.

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

A Canadian Islamic school that was linked to the California shooter as well as four students who travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State closed for the day on Tuesday, citing “safety concerns.”

Staff at the Al-Huda Institute said the media’s focus on the school had put the staff and students at risk. Media focus on the school began this week when it emerged that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino terrorists, had attended a branch of the school in Pakistan.

Last year, the school was in the headlines as four of its students, aged 15-18, had attempted to travel to Syria to join jihadi organizations. Travelling from Canada through Cairo to Istanbul, three of the girls were stopped by the Turks after the girls’ parents alerted Canadian authorities.  The oldest girl made it to Syria and has been living there since 2014.

The Al-Huda Institute in Mississauga, Ontario is one of a chain of 200 Al-Huda schools in the U.S., Canada and Pakistan. Founded in 1994 by an ultra-conservative female Islamic scholar, Farhat Hashmi, its ideology is said to have spread like a social movement in North America and around the world.

The self-declared “Islamic feminist,” Hashmi wears a burka, advocates total obedience of a woman to her husband and promotes Saudi Wahhabist ideology. When she opened a new center in London – in a former police station — she was accused of teaching a “medieval view of human rights and women’s place in society” as well as advocating jihad.

Her teachings were so controversial and offensive she was asked to leave Canada in 2006. Canadian reports say she has not been in the country for the last three years.

“Women gravitate towards her because they are either disillusioned with their life in the West, or they want their daughters to be protected from what they perceive to be the moral laxity of the West,”Muslim human rights activist Farzana Hassan said, speaking to theInternational Business Times. “Her network is large and growing because her graduates then go out and spread the word to other recruits.”

As for Malik, after she began studying at an Al-Huda Institute in Pakistan (before she married fellow San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook), a close friend said she noticed a big change in her former schoolmate. “We were like, ‘What happened to Malik?’” said Abida Rani. “She became so religious, so serious, and so focused on Islamic teachings, and she lost her interest in her studies.”

Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

December 8, 2015

Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate, National Review, David French, December 7, 2015

friday-prayersFriday prayers in Karachi, Pakistan, July 3, 2015. (Rizwan Tabassum/AFP/Getty)

It is simply false to declare that jihadists represent the “tiny few extremists” who sully the reputation of an otherwise peace-loving and tolerant Muslim faith. In reality, the truth is far more troubling — that jihadists represent the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale, with hundreds of millions of believers holding views that Americans would rightly find revolting. Not all Muslims are hateful, of course, but so many are that it’s not remotely surprising that the world is wracked by wave after wave of jihadist violence.

To understand the Muslim edifice of hate, imagine it as a pyramid — with broadly-shared bigotry at the bottom, followed by stair steps of escalating radicalism — culminating in jihadist armies that in some instances represent a greater share of their respective populations than does the active-duty military in the United States.

The base of the pyramid, the most broadly held hatred in the Islamic world, is anti-Semitism, with staggering numbers of Muslims expressing anti-Jewish views. In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League released the results of polling 53,100 people in 102 countries for evidence of anti-Semitic attitudes and beliefs. The numbers from the majority-Muslim world are difficult to believe for those steeped in politically correct rhetoric about Islam. A full 74 percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic beliefs, including 92 percent of Iraqis, a whopping 69 percent of relatively secular Turks, and 74 percent of Saudis.

The trend toward Muslim anti-Semitism continues even when Muslim nations are far removed from the Arab–Israeli conflict. A solid majority — 61 percent — of majority-Muslim Malays harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, while only 13 percent of neighboring majority-Buddhist Thais are anti-Jewish.

The next level of the pyramid is Muslim commitment to deadly Islamic supremacy. In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. Collectively, this means that hundreds of millions of men and women support capital punishment for the exercise of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion:

death-penalty-for-leaving-islam

Moving beyond Islamic supremacy to the next step of the pyramid, enormous numbers of Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. It is still stunning to see how popular Osama bin Laden was early last decade, and even as his popularity plunged (as he grew weaker and more isolated), his public approval remained disturbingly high:

confidence-in-osama-bin-laden

But what about ISIS — the world’s most savage and deadly terror organization? The latest polling data show that while a majority of Muslims reject ISIS, extrapolating from the populations of polled countries alone shows that roughly 50 million people express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS:

views-of-isis-overhelmingly-negative

But sympathy for terror is different from active support, and here’s where the numbers are difficult to pin down. I know of no reliable database that shows how many Muslims give to jihadist charities, spread jihadist propaganda on social media, support radical preachers, or otherwise take concrete actions to advance the terrorists’ cause. We do know, for example, that anti-Israel terrorism is so popular in Saudi Arabia that a telethon once raised $100 million to support the 2002 intifada. Shows of support included this charming scene:

A 6-year-old boy, with a plastic gun slung over his shoulder and fake explosives strapped around his waist, walked into a donation center and made a symbolic donation of plastic explosives, according to Al Watan daily.

It is from this fertile soil that jihadists grow. And here the numbers decisively belie the “few extremists” rhetoric. In Iran alone, the Revolutionary Guard represents a proportionate share of the population similar to the combined strength of the active-duty Army and Marines here in the United States. Between Boko Haram, the Al-Nusra front, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Yemeni militias, Libyan militias, and many others, the number of active jihadists numbers in the hundreds of thousands; some estimates indicate that 100,000 are fighting in Syria alone.

Humor | A date that will live forever in infamy

December 8, 2015

A date that will live forever in infamy, Sultan Knish Blog, Daniel Greenfield, December 7, 2015

Naval Base Bombed, Shinto Worshipers Fear Backlash – New York Times – December 8 1941 

Pearl Harbor 9

A day after planes passed over their peaceful village on the way to attack the Naval Station at Pearl Harbor, local fishermen are still picking up the pieces.

“I don’t know what any of this is about,” a man who would only give his name as Paji said, holding the remains of a net which he had used to earn a living. “All I know is that the killing has to stop.”

In Washington, government officials urged the public to stay calm and not to jump to any conclusions warning that such reactions might play into the hands of the militant extremists responsible for the attack.

Early copies of President Roosevelt’s upcoming speech to Congress likewise warn the American public of the dangers of overreaction.

“We are not at war with Japan,” it says. “We are at war with a tiny handful of extremists who are attempting to drag the Japanese people into a conflict. But we must keep a cool head and not allow them to win by provoking a war. We will defeat this enemy, but we will do it by not fighting them.”

A profile has emerged of at least one of these attackers. Hideki Nakamura, a graduate of Harvard and a talented oboe player, was shot down and captured. Nothing in his background, which included playing for the Harvard squash team, would have lead anyone to conclude that he was capable of such a thing.

KATANA, a local civil rights organization partly funded by Japan’s war propaganda office, has warned that American foreign policy is responsible for the radicalization of such young men like Nakamura.

“What made this man hate America so much that he wanted to bomb it?” a spokeswoman for KATANA asked. “How did America fail him? And how can we win him back?”

Nakamura’s guards have suggested that the pilot is soft-spoken and has pleasant manners, but that he becomes vocally exercised over the American embargo of Japan and the refusal of many universities to install rice paper doors in dormitories.

“Detaining Nakamura only inspires others to imitate him,” KATANA said, suggesting that he instead be released back to Japan where the government is running an anti-extremism program at the Strategic Institute of War that claims to be able to deprogram extremists with a 97% success rate.

Unfortunately the program, dubbed KAMIKAZE, is unable to accommodate all potential extremists without additional foreign aid funding from the United States government.

image014

“It’s cheap for us to spend 3 million dollars fighting Japanese extremism by funding Kamikaze instead of spending 30 million on national defense,” Senator Earl Hawkins said. “Studies show that one of the leading causes of anti-American sentiments is unemployment. KAMIKAZE is tackling that.”

Foreign policy experts at the Center for American Progress warned that the so-called Pearl Harbor event was the product of decades of American expansionism.

“It’s easy for the flag-waving jingoist in the stockyards to rave about the Japs, but this attack did not occur in a vacuum,” Lester Gore-Vinton said. “Look at Commodore Perry’s globalization venture and the Philippines War and our ill-advised intervention in the Russian Revolution. This is blowback.”

At impromptu peace rallies in New York City’s Union Square and San Francisco’s Union Square, speakers called for the government to explore all options for peace. Many pointed out that more Americans die every year of shingles than were killed at Pearl Harbor.

“The United States is allied with Great Britain. We have been aiding the Western occupation of Asia,” Earl Gorber of Working People Want Peace and a Living Wage Now said. “The only amazing thing is that it took this long to happen. As long as the United States continues propping up the reactionary imperialists of Great Britain against the progressive movements of the German and Japanese vanguard of the working class, attacks like these will come again and again.”

Some were skeptical that Japan had even been behind the attack.

“Anyone can paint insignia on a plane and drop some smoke bombs. That’s all we’ve seen on these photos,” Martha Gabbitz exclaimed. “There hasn’t even been a declaration of war.  We don’t have a single piece of undeniable proof that there was even an attack. All it takes is a week in a photo lab and the government can produce a picture of anything.”

Meanwhile at Shinto temples in Los Angeles, the mood was fearful and subdued. Worshipers refused to give their names worried about the consequences to their families.

“This is madness,” an older gentleman studying detailed charts of the California coastline said. “One day you’re an All-American entrepreneur studying submarine trade routes to America and the next day everyone is glaring at you no matter how many American flags you stick on your aerial poison gas balloon.”

In San Francisco, the 109-year-old Rev. Francis Wheatley-Simpson, famous for protesting every war, including the Civil War, had already declared a hunger strike, even though no American forces were engaged in fighting.

US_Navy_040120-N-0879R-009_Pearl_Harbor_survivor_Bill_Johnson_stares_at_the_list_of_names_inscribed_in_the_USS_Arizona_Memorial

“War is never the answer,” Wheatley-Simpson said, as he had said about WW1, the Spanish- American War, the Civil War and the French and Indian War. “Love is the answer. Violence never solves anything. America was not built on war. It will not survive through war.”

“It doesn’t matter what Japan did. There will be war,” predicted Mason Johnson, author of War is a Farce That Forces Us to Fear. “We love war. We are obsessed with war. That’s why we have a society with such rampant criminality. Our idea of masculinity is to use force on everything. Even our national symbols represent violation and patriarchy. If it isn’t Japan, it will be someone else.”

Meanwhile on a Topeka street, Barnard Stevenson, an 18-year-old lad blinked in confusion when asked about Pearl Harbor. He likewise could not name Hitler or Mussolini and had no idea where Europe was. He was however able to name the stars of Rocket Assault, the latest big film in which a dashing reporter must team up with the enemy to stop his own government from provoking a war with a false flag attack.

“Is this anything kind of like that?” he wondered when the Pearl Harbor attack was explained to him. –

Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time: professor

December 8, 2015

Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time: professor, Tehran Times, Javad Heirannia, December 8, 2015

(Did Nader Entessar  ghost write parts of Obama’s December 6th address to the nation? — DM)

TEHRAN – Regarding Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s second letter to the Western youth in which he called terrorism “our common enemy”, Professor Nader Entessar says it is necessary to counter “Islamophobia no matter where it emanates”.

In part of his letter issued on November 29, the Leader of Islamic Revolution said: Anyone who has benefited from affection and humanity is affected and disturbed by witnessing these [terrorist] scenes- whether it occurs in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria.

Entessar, professor and chair of political science at South Alabama University, tells the Tehran Times that “interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time in the past fifty or sixty years.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei in his second letter to the Western youth has talked about terrorism and its roots. What is the importance of this issue?

A: Terrorism has been a major global scourge for some time now. Although the term “terrorism” is used extensively by journalists, pundits and politicians, there is no universal agreement on what terrorism is. There is certainly a need for a dispassionate treatment of this phenomenon and its root causes if one is serious about confronting the threat of terrorism in today’s world.

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei has emphasized in his message that Islam is the religion of friendship, however why do some try to equate Islam with violence?

A: In the West, Islam has become a political buzzword for politicians and political parties of differing ideological stripes to advance their personal agenda. In many ways, the term “Islam” has replaced communism as a rallying cry against which many politicians in the West can coalesce and advance their electoral agendas. For example, the Republican Party in the United States has incorporated Islamophobia as an essential part of its 2016 presidential campaign. In addition, the same trend can be witnessed at state and local elections as well where running against “Islam” has become a badge of honor for many U.S. politicians.

Q: Why do some try to associate Islam with terrorism whenever a terrorist act happens?

A: The emergence of such violent groups as al-Qaeda and Daesh in recent years and their terrorist campaigns under the guise of “Islam” has given a field day to the Islamophobes to advance their message. Unfortunately, the thrust of Islamophobia is not limited to extremist groups in the West. Several liberal groups and personalities have also jumped on the anti-Islam bandwagon in many Western countries. Again, as I previously indicated, it pays political dividends to adopt an anti-Islam posture in the West. Being an anti-Muslim bigot is relatively cost-free but may bring political advantages to a politician or would-be politician in several Western countries.

Q: What is the importance of Ayatollah Khamenei’s letter at this juncture of time?

A: It is very important to confront Islamophobia no matter where it emanates. Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time in the past fifty or sixty years. Therefore, leaders of religious faith groups have a special responsibility to try to reach to other faith communities and highlight what unites the human race in order to promote the common good.

*********

[highlight]

“In the West, Islam has become a political buzzword for politicians and political parties of differing ideological stripes to advance their personal agenda,” Entessar says in an interview with the Tehran Times.

Op-Ed: Post San Bernardino — How stupid are we supposed to be?

December 7, 2015

Op-Ed: Post San Bernardino — How stupid are we supposed to be? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, December 7, 2015

A house filled with some 2,000 rounds of ammunition and nobody saw nothin’. Zip.

The place was crawling with a massive arsenal of weapons that likely filled the garage to the kitchen sink — but who, me?

Nothing. Looked pretty normal, say relatives, friends, acquaintances and anybody who visited a house that was stockpiled for mass destruction.

Even people who lived in and around the house – WHAT? We saw nothing unusual.

They had to step over and around a mountain of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) to get from the living room to the bathroom, but nobody winced?

Nobody asked – “Yo, Syed, what’s this?”

That’s what we are supposed to believe. Nobody else but those two had a hand in the murder of 14 innocents in San Bernardino.

Accomplices? Zero. So they say and so we are expected to believe.

Mr. Obama spoke to us a few moments ago. Finally called it terrorism, though not Islamic terrorism. For us to guess.

He announced that he is taking the fight to ISIS. We should feel safe. Except that ISIS, or ISIL, as he calls it, is one problem.

Worse is the local, the unaffiliated but radicalized freelancer who comes from within our own neighborhood.

We know where ISIS lives. But for the introvert, the retail operator we have no address until it’s too late. Case in point, San Bernardino.

We are not at war with Islam, said the president, so no wonder people who knew the Farooks were shocked…shocked!

Typical Americans, say people who knew them.

Quiet. Unassuming. Friendly. Hard-working, Doting father. Loving mother. Played Scrabble. How do you spell jihad? Capital J?

There were no clues. Nope. Nothing to suggest a husband and wife radicalized to the hilt and armed to the teeth.

“They lived the American dream,” said a neighbor, who likewise saw nothing, knew nothing, suspected nothing. Nothing at all.

Golly, he was born here, good old Syed. What more do you want? Wife came from Pakistan. Wonderful country, Pakistan.

So what if, as rumor has it, he hated Jews and maybe Christians. Doesn’t everybody? A regular Joe, Syed.

She kept to herself, did Tashfeen. All agree to this. Typical American wifey in a hijab. Most likely clipped coupons to save on milk and explosives.

“They were the perfect couple,” say people who knew them as the perfect couple.

Too bad it had to end like this. Obviously it was our fault. Global warming.

So the president assures us that he is keeping us safe.

Ban Radical Islamists and those Syrian migrants from entering the country and we’ll start believing.

Breaking down Obama’s gun control terror denial speech

December 7, 2015

Breaking down Obama’s gun control terror denial speech, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, December 6, 2015

(Please see also, Satire | Advance copy of Obama’s Sunday address on the San Bernardino killings. — DM)

obama-wears-tan-suit-149481242256_1

Barack Hussein Obama II will stop striding around golf courses, Disneyland, pricey restaurants and assorted other photo ops long enough to sit down in the Oval Office and deliver a speech denying responsibility for the latest act of Muslim terror, denying that Muslim terrorism exists and demanding the abolition of the Bill of Rights.

It will predictably break down as

1. Muslims are Awesome – The Muslim community is our greatest resource for fighting terrorism, we need more of them, including tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” (13% of whom poll in support of ISIS), to make us that more able to fight the “Un-Islamic” terrorism of Muslims. Anyone who disagrees loves terrorists and probably Hitler and discount cheese sandwiches.

2. Fear – We need to stop being afraid of Muslim terrorists because Obama has everything under control. ISIS is contained, except when it’s murdering Americans and Europeans, and expanding around the world. Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Our greatest enemy is fear of Muslim terrorism which we can only combat with hefty doses of denial.

3. Gun Control – We need to give up our civil liberties to fight these un-Islamic terrorists (who have hijacked a great religion and flown into two skyscrapers and the Pentagon). It’s time for “common sense reforms” to outlaw the Second Amendment. Also we should bring Muslim terrorists to America, but deny 2nd amendment rights to anyone on a no-fly list… without actually deporting them.

Did I mention that these are “common sense reforms” that most “ordinary folks” like Washington D.C. lobbyists and Michael Bloomberg support?

4. Not Who We Are – Fighting Muslim terrorism is not “who we are”. We are more like the Swedes. We fill our country with Muslims who want to kill us and then double down on it after the latest attacks. Because these are our new “values”. We aren’t “afraid” of Muslim terrorists. That’s why we just stick our heads in the sand and double down on the same terror policies. We could change them, but that would not be who, Obama claims, “we are”.

Who are we? We are people who commit mass suicide. Who invite our enemies to kill us and then blame ourselves for offending them. That is Obama’s version of who we are.

5. Personal Stories – Pete from Cleveland is standing outside a mosque with a Nerf gun to guard it against imaginary hate crimes. Ahmed is fighting extremism in his mosque while shouting Allahu Akbar at Hamas rallies. Mohammed is sitting in the White House tweeting against ISIS and in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. Together they’ll defeat ISIS or America. Or something.

6. Someday We’ll Beat ISIS – Okay probably not today or tomorrow. But we have some of our best minds on it. And we’re making gains. Our policy of not really fighting ISIS is supported by political appointees like random Pentagon general and local police chief who attends mosque dinners. Go back to shopping at Whole Foods without fear. Obama has this covered. Right before his next vacation.

Cartoons of the day

December 5, 2015

H/t Power Line

PC-Shooting-copy
Obama-Prearl-harvor
Terror-attack

Longtime Belgian Mayor: A Godfather of Jihad?

November 27, 2015

Longtime Belgian Mayor: A Godfather of Jihad? Gatestone InstituteStefan Frank, November 27, 2015

  • “Instead of bombing Raqqah, France should be bombing Molenbeek.” — Eric Zemmour, French journalist.
  • No one, at least outside Belgium, is talking about Molenbeek’s long-time anti-Semitic mayor and the alliance with radical Islamists that secured his power.
  • The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size — an astounding concentration.
  • “[T]here are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca.” — Resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner.
  • The many shops run by Jews suddenly disappeared in 2008 after harassment and threats by local “youths.” How did Mayor Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the “right to diversity.”
  • It is supposed to be Israel’s fault when the Arabs of Belgium — and especially those of Molenbeek — have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party.

The Molenbeek district of Brussels is considered Europe’s “terrorist factory.” At least three of the perpetrators of the November terrorist attacks in Paris came from there: Ibrahim Abdeslam, Abdelhamid Abaaoud and the remaining fugitive Salah Abdeslam. The list does not stop there. The Viennese daily newspaper “Die Presse” writes:

“Molenbeek already made headlines for the first time in 2001: Abdessatar Dahmane, the murderer of the Afghan war hero and horror of the Taliban, Ahmed Schah Massoud, was also a regular at the Islamic center at 18 Rue du Manchester, known for its radical views; as well as Hassan El Haski, who was presumed behind the attacks in Casablanca (41 dead in 2003) and Madrid (200 victims in 2004). The weapons that were used in the attacks on the French satirical paper “Charlie Hebdo” in January 2015 came from Molenbeek. The French jihadist Mehdi Nemouche, who caused a bloodbath in the Brussels Jewish Museum the previous year, lived here. In August 2015, Ayoub El Khazzani started out from here on his attempt to attack a train from Amsterdam to Paris.”

The two jihadists killed by Belgian police in January, in Verviers, came from Molenbeek. The terrorist Amedy Coulibaly, who attacked the HyperCacher kosher supermarket in Paris, also spent time in Molenbeek.

The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size — an astounding concentration. Belgium is, in relation to the size of its population, the greatest European exporter of fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Most of them — at least 48 — come from Molenbeek. “Instead of bombing Raqqah,” says the French journalist Eric Zemmour, “France should be bombing Molenbeek.”

More than half the population of Molenbeek is Muslim; a quarter come from Morocco — such as the Paris attackers. “You know, there are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca,” says a resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner of the French news portal “Atlantico.” Gaetner does consider that “surely an exaggeration,” but admits: “When one walks the streets of this Brussels district, with its nearly 96,000 residents, one is overcome by a bizarre impression. Not only would you think you were no longer in the Kingdom of Belgium, but an oppressive atmosphere reigns here.”

Foreign reporters are only now discovering Molenbeek. Those who have to live there have been complaining about the conditions there for a long time. The following excerpt is from a report by the Belgian weekly magazine Le Vif L’Express from 2011:

Buildings in danger of collapsing, street corners that are becoming landfills, a parked car rusts away in a parking lot: Urban renewal would be helpful here. “This is a gangster district. Here you get beat up for five Euros,” says Karim. The shopkeeper is not happy. He talks about how he recently chased a teenager with a knife in his hand, who had stolen cigarettes. This scene took place just steps away from the Ribaucourt subway station. “The Rue Piers is not safe at this hour,” says a young woman, who after 6pm either makes sure she is accompanied home, or else takes a taxi. She has been living with friends in an apartment in the district for three years. The apartment is large, and not too expensive. “But I am always vigilant,” she says. Especially when she is wearing a skirt. “Insults, spitting, groping: I have experienced that.” Other residents are moving out. “My house was burglarized twice within one year,” says a witness. “When I go to the supermarket around the corner, I double-lock the door and turn on the alarm.”

Testimonials to a city in fear. Much of the responsibility for this apparently rests with Philippe Moureaux, member of the Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste), who was mayor of Molenbeek from 1992 until 2012. Confronted with the complaints of his citizens, he regularly denied the unsustainable conditions in his town: “It makes me angry when people pick out tiny details and lie about them,” he said in the quoted report. Molenbeek is “not the Bronx;” the problems with criminality only concern a small number of streets, said Moureaux.

Then Moureaux showed his true colors: “Molenbeek is a symbol that certain people want to destroy. But only over my dead body.” Certain people? Does the mayor actually believe in a conspiracy against his district of misery? One does not have to search for long to realize that Moureaux, on whose initiative Belgium passed an “anti-racism law” in 1981, is an anti-Semite — not exactly common even in Belgium. At the same time, he downplays and supports the violence of young Muslims — also against Jews.

1365Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), suspected by French authorities of masterminding this month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, is — 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.

There was heavy rioting in 2009 during Ramadan in Molenbeek. Muslim youths set up barricades made of burning tires, set cars ablaze, threw rocks at firefighters who came to put out fires and, equipped with rocks and crowbars, looted stores. According to unconfirmed reports, the police received the following order: “Do not provoke them, do not search them, do not intervene, even if dozens of them come together, do not issue warnings for harassment, not even if they throw rocks at you.”

Jewish shop-owners were also harassed other than at Ramadan. In 2008, the Flemish magazine Dag Allemaal reported on “youths” yelling, “The Jews are our worst enemies,” in the streets of Molenbeek. There used be many stores run by Jews on the Rue du Prado and the Chaussée de Grand in Molenbeek, but in 2008, with the exception of one furniture store, they suddenly disappeared. And nobody seemed bothered by this, especially not Mayor Moureaux.

None of the Jews wanted to speak with the Dag Allemaal reporter, out of fear of reprisals. The one exception was a man whom the paper referred to as “René.” René ran a barbershop for over 30 years in the Chaussée de Gand. Then came a series of acts of violence. It began with graffiti on his shop’s windows: “Sale youpin” (“dirty Jew”) and other anti-Semitic slogans. Later on, six Muslim youths stormed into his shop, destroyed the furnishings and punched René in the face. He called the police. An hour later, the youths returned in order to “punish” him; they broke all the mirrors. For more than 35 years, René had built up a large and loyal customer base, but after this attack, most people were afraid to visit his shop. He had no other choice but to close it.

How did Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the “right to diversity.” That is what he said in 2008, in the weekly paper Le Vif L’Express. It was a report with the title: “Enquête Moureaux, Shérif de Molenbeek, drogué du pouvoir – Son islamo-municipalisme” (“The Moureaux Investigation: Sheriff of Molenbeek, addicted to power — His Islamo-municipalism”). That he was “addicted to power” (“drogué du pouvoir”) were his own words. The paper described him as a “soaring intellectual, university professor and brilliant minister, who resides in the beautiful Uccle district.”

But back to Moureaux’s Jews: At 20 years old, Moureaux was a Marxist, he said, and never accepted anybody’s right to diversity; but he “evolved”: “What changed my mind were talks with the representatives of the Jewish community. It saddens me today to see how they deny the Muslims the right to diversity.”

This “right to diversity” was not granted to citizens by Moureaux during Ramadan. In a press release with the title, “Ramadan regulations for everyone,” Moureaux appealed to citizens in August 2011 to stop driving into the center of Molenbeek in the afternoon during the month of Ramadan, because Muslims are doing their shopping there.

In January 2015, after the massacre of the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the murder of four Jews in Paris’s HyperCacher supermarket, the now-retired mayor gave an interview to Maghreb TV, a channel broadcast via the internet, the target audience for which is North Africans in Belgium. After he made an appeal not to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few terrorists, it got wild:

“Many have an interest in dividing us. … Unfortunately, these people can be found everywhere. There is a contagion of the problems of the Middle East, in the Near East, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which leads to some having an interest in provoking local disagreements, like a reflex to what happens over there. … It will be said that it is coming from both sides. But it is obvious that they are trying to create hatred for Arabs here in the West, in order to justify the policies of the state of Israel, policies that appear unacceptable to me.”

It is supposed to be Israel’s fault when the Arabs of Belgium — and especially those of Molenbeek — have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party. In March 2013, the Socialists of Molenbeek issued an invitation to an event titled: “What if we freely and calmly spoke about Zionism?” On the invitation flyer was an anti-Semitic caricature, drawn in the style of Der Stürmer, by the Arabic neo-Nazi “Zéon.” After loud protests, the Socialists cancelled the event — on the grounds that the aspired-to “calm” discussion was unfortunately no longer possible.

Many examples can be listed to show what an anti-Semitic environment prevails in Molenbeek. In the official town magazine, “Molenbeek Info,” one can find a text in which the Stalinist Party of Work calls for a celebration in honor of Dr. Hanne Bosselaers, who had just returned from Gaza: “Everybody come!” In Molenbeek, you need to know, there is a hospital run by Stalinists under the name “Medicine for the People” (“Medécine pour le peuple”), which in 2013 initiated a “partnership” with Al-Quds Hospital in Gaza. Consequently, Bosselaers had a lot to talk about. For example: “The Palestinians want us to boycott Israel.”

And what did Dr. Bosselaers have to say about Hamas?

“Behind the attempt of some of our politicians to cast the Palestinian resistance organization in a negative light lies a political goal. Certain circles keep pointing out the “Islamic character” of Hamas, in the hope of keeping the population from forming solidarity with the Palestinians…. The Palestinian resistance is much greater than Hamas, and it is completely up to the Palestinians to decide which form of resistance they choose against their oppressors.”

Welcome to Molenbeek. The jurist Etienne Dujardin recently wrote in the news portal Levif.be that the conditions in Islamist terror districts such as Molenbeek, Verviers or Saint Denis also had something to do with the deliberate efforts of some politicians, who find welcome campaign workers in radical Islamic circles:

“[p]arties have been practicing a form of cronyism based on elections; they all used the same radical mosques as mouthpieces for their election campaigns. Some saw them as a massive pool of easily available votes.”

And that is how it seems Mayor Moureaux observed that he could personally profit from the transformation of Molenbeek into a bastion of jihad. As he himself lives in a wealthy district, he was able to reject with great arrogance citizens who complained about excessive crime. He won elections by catering to radical Islam. Once again, the rule is confirmed: If someone agitates against Israel, it is always a symptom of other serious character flaws in that person. Behind the anti-Israel agitation of Moureaux lay a corrupt mayor, who only cared for his office and his income; who, as he himself said, was “addicted to power.” That his town was transforming into a hell of criminality, anti-Semitism and Sharia, he either did not care about or actually welcomed. Those who fled from Molenbeek could no longer participate; and those who moved there liked what Moureaux was doing: encouraging Islamization and agitating against Israel and Jews. This is how Molenbeek became, during the term in office of just one man, what it is today.

Originally published in German in slightly different form by Audiatur Online.

John Kerry describes how useless the “vetting” of Syrian refugees is

November 22, 2015

John Kerry describes how useless the “vetting” of Syrian refugees is, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 22, 2015

(Mr. Greenfield seems to have missed at least one significant problem. As reported at Investors.com on November 17th, the UNHCR 

is working “hand in hand” with an international Islamist group of 57 Muslim nations — the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — whose founding charter seeks to propagate “legitimate jihad” and “the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.” Saudi-based OIC, in fact, is tied to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. [Emphasis added.]

“We are delighted to work … with the OIC,” said U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres.

So it’s really the U.N. and radical Islamists who are choosing your new Muslim neighbors.

What could possibly go wrong? — DM)

kerry_donuts_public_domain_stategovphoto

The official talking points about vetting so-called Syrian refugees, mainly Muslims from UN camps, a population that mostly excludes actual refugees, Christians, Yazidis, etc, talk about how “multi-layered” the vetting is.

Here’s John Kerry laying out the process.

First, many candidates for refugee resettlement in the United States are interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to determine whether they meet the definition of refugee…

In the interview, UNHCR identifies any red flags which would render individuals ineligible for resettlement under our laws and security protocols. UNHCR also screens applicants to determine whether they fall within the priorities the United States has established for resettlement those refugees who are deemed most vulnerable.

This means that we outsource our refugee policy to the UN and also the first layer of security screening. UNHCR is both notoriously corrupt and incompetent.

Obama Inc and its media allies try to pretend that we have a more reliable security screening policy than Europe does, but they both begin in the same place, with the overburdened disastrous UNHCR.

But it gets even better…

Second, a refugee applicant is referred by the UNHCR to the United States along with a package of information. At that point, the State Department takes over the process. Resettlement support centers, operated by faith-based and international organizations contracting with the State Department, first interview the applicant to confirm information about the case and collect any identification documents and aliases used by the refugee applicants and initiate security checks, which are exclusively conducted by the US. Government.

When the State Department takes over the process, Kerry means that the next stage gets outsourced to contractors who get paid money every time they resettle a refugee. These groups obsessively lobby for more refugees. They have a basic conflict of interest here… and yet they and UNHCR are the original sources of information used for the vetting.

Whatever interviews happen next, UNHCR and the resettlers have already given the applicant a script to follow, shown him what questions will be asked and helped prep him for them.

Neither organization is looking for “red flags” or has security concerns. Their priority is to move the settler further down the road.

Next, cue the databases.

For every single refugee applicant, the Department of State conducts biographic checks of the refugee?s primary name and any aliases against its Consular Lookout and Support System database (CLASS).

I sure hope we have the right name and the right spelling. If we don’t, the system is useless. If he’s not in the system, which the majority of members of ISIS, let alone assorted members of Jihadist groups in Syria aren’t, the system is useless.

USCIS collects biometric information, consisting of fingerprints, for each refugee applicant, ages 14 to 79. USCIS coordinates the screening of refugee applicant fingerprints against the vast biometric holdings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s Next Generation Identification system.

That’s really useful for identifying people who have been in trouble with the law before here. But again, the average ISIS member does not have his fingerprints in our database.

At the same time, a team of highly-trained USCIS refugee officers is responsible for personally conducting the refugee status interviews. These officers undergo five weeks of specialized and extensive training that includes comprehensive instruction on all aspects of the job, including refugee law, grounds of inadmissibility, fraud detection and prevention, security protocols, interviewing techniques, credibility analysis, and country conditions research.

Yup. 5 weeks of specialized training.

Our final line of defense, the refugee status interview, the one that unlike the useless UNHCR and the downright destructive resettler interview, is theoretically being conducted by people who have the interests of the United States at heart.

And the folks conducting them have a whole 5 weeks of training in “all aspects of their job”. Somewhere in there they fit in some “country conditions research”. The odds are good this interview will be conducted through an interpreter anyway and a friendly one at that.

But I’m sure the terrorists will just spill that he’s an ISIS member to the guy or gal who has 5 weeks of training in refugee law. Still wait… there’s an extra bonus week of training.

Officers conducting interviews of Syrian applicants now undergo an additional one-week training focusing on Syria-specific topics, including classified intelligence briefings.

That’s right. 1 whole extra week of extensive coffee breaks and snoozing through somebody mispronouncing Al-Nusra Front. What more do you people want?

Fourth, before an approved refugee arrives in the United States, US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at DHS receives a manifest of all refugees who have prior approval to travel to the United States. CBP receives this manifest eight days before a refugee’s scheduled travel.

Eight days.

No way ISIS is getting through.

To summarize, if the terrorist doesn’t have fingerprints in a database, he’ll get coached in multiple interviews how to respond and the only way he’s getting caught is if he announces during the actual interview that he’s a terrorist.

And even if he does, he’ll probably get a pass. Nidal Hassan did.