Archive for the ‘Islamic slaughter’ category

An Islamic Apocalypse in Brussels

March 24, 2016

An Islamic Apocalypse in Brussels, Front Page MagazineRaymond Ibrahim, March 24, 2016

gh

[The] spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.

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

Islamic jihad struck Brussels Tuesday morning—first at Brussels Airport and then at a metro station 400 meters from EU headquarters—leaving at least 34 people dead and 230 injured.

It was an apocalyptic scene according to survivors, “with blood and dismembered bodies everywhere,” even “thrown in to the air.”  One man recalled the “horror. I saw at least seven people dead. There was blood. People had lost legs. You could see their bodies but no legs.”

Witnesses heard the attackers yelling in Arabic moments before the bombs—one of which contained nails—detonated.  Other jihadi trademarks—including an unexploded suicide vest and a Kalashnikov rifle beside the body of a slain terrorist—were found.  Islam’s ancient war tactic of blending in with non-Muslims was also implemented.

Horrific as the attack is, its inspiration and Western responses to it are all too typical—meaning, as I opined last year after the Paris massacre, “many more such attacks and worse will continue.  Count on it.”

First, as happened on 9/11, Muslims around the world—those unnamed millions the media refer to as “ISIS supporters”—celebrated, including by once again handing out candy and shouting Islam’s victory war cry, “Allahu Akbar.” Yes, that ancient Islamic hate was back in the air and rampant on social media.  “We are not just clapping, but we are happy again. We are smiling, we are laughing and we are joyful like it’s a day of celebration,” tweeted one ISIS sympathizer.  Another wrote: “#Brussels, if you continue your war against the religion of Allah then this is our response.”  Another wrote: “What a beautiful day today.  F*** Belgium.” Yet another wrote, “A lot of duas [Muslim prayers] were answered today.”

Still, most Muslim sympathizers were quick to portray their bloodlust as a product of grievances against the West: “the most common remark under the hashtag was ‘You declared war against us and bombed us, and we attack you inside your homeland.’ Another popular reaction from ISIS supports on Twitter was that the Brussels attacks were intended to avenge the Muslims’ blood that was spilled in Mosul in a series of airstrikes by the Western coalition over the weekend.”

Meanwhile, and as usual, in its communiques to fellow Muslims, ISIS articulated the attack through a distinctly Islamic paradigm.  It even signaled the attack with the words, “We have come to you with slaughter”—an assertion based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s words to a non-Muslim tribe that refused to submit to Islam: “I have come to you with slaughter.”

If this assertion is not clear enough concerning the intent and mission of Muhammad—and those who seek to follow him—another canonical assertion attributed to him and regularly quoted by jihadis, including over a decade ago in the opening paragraph of al-Qaeda’s “Declaration of War against Americans,” has the prophet saying:

I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped—Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my commandments (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.12).

Unfortunately, this one aspect—that Islamic scripture clearly, plainly, and unequivocally promotes violence against all who refuse to submit to Allah—is the very same aspect most vehemently denied by Western elites.   Already, as always happens after an Islamic terror attack in the West, the talking heads are warning against “rampant Islamophobia” and abacklash against Muslims.  Media are hosting professional liars, like Ramadan Foundation’s Muhammad Shafiq, who insists that “terrorism is forbidden in Islam” (even though the Koran calls on Muslims to terrorize those who resist Islam, e.g., 3:151 and 8:12).

Still, due to these growing numbers of jihadi attacks on Western soil, increasing numbers of politicians are responding with tough—but ultimately meaningless—words: “We are at war,” responded French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.  “We have been subjected for the last few months in Europe to acts of war.”

This is true.  But just like George W. Bush’s famous “war on terrorism”—a war on a method not its motivation—Valls doesn’t indicate who “we are at war” with, even though the most elemental step in winning a war is to “know your enemy.”

One of the few American political aspirants who need not revise his tone in light of this attack is Donald Trump.  Over two months ago, he said “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law.… You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it’s like living in a hellhole right now.”

This latest terror strike in Europe will likely reignite the refugee debate, which, while important, also minimizes the significance of the issue.  The common denominator between all these recent terror strikes throughout the West is not that the culprits were all refugees but rather that they were all Muslim.  Many terror attacks were homegrown. Muslim citizens of America were responsible for Fort Hood (13 murdered), Boston Marathon (four murdered), Chattanooga (four murdered), and most recently San Bernardino (14 murdered).

Of course, Europe could have spared itself if only it would’ve looked to the plight of non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim majority nations.  As far back as 2012, after Western supported jihadi/freedom fighters were unleashed on Assad’s formerly stable Syria, intentionally displacing hundreds of thousands of Christians, the Syrian Christian archbishop correctly predicted “the jihadis will not stop here [Middle East], the war will spread to Europe.”  Four years later and the war has certainly begun.

Consider the 2010 massacre at the Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad.  Armed jihadis stormed the church during Sunday worship service, opened fire indiscriminately at the Christian worshipers, before detonating their suicide vests.  At least fifty-eight Christian worshippers, including many women and children, were murdered, and nearly 100 wounded—many, like in Brussels, losing their arms or legs (see here for GRAPHIC pictures).  If the Brussel jihadis used nails in their bombs, the Baghdad church jihadis wore vests “filled with ball bearings to kill as many people as possible.”

Now, if Brussels—or New York, or London, or Madrid, ad infinitum—was really “intended to avenge the Muslims’ blood that was spilled in Mosul in a series of airstrikes,” as aggrieved Muslims regularly claim—then one must ask:  why are immensely weak, outnumbered, ostracized, and politically disenfranchised Christian minorities living in the Muslim world, who are wholly incapable of hurting any Muslim, also being terrorized and slaughtered, to the point of genocide?

The answer should be clear.  So long as Islam calls for jihad against those who reject Allah and his prophet, so long will attacks like Brussels (and the countless before it) continue.  Before the age of political correctness, the Encyclopaedia of Islam put it this way:

[The] spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.

This is the one ugly fact that few want to accept, much less act on—and understandably so, for the ramifications are immense.

Gingrich: When will our leaders realize we are at war?

March 24, 2016

Gingrich: When will our leaders realize we are at war? Fox News via You Tube, March 23, 2016

 

Awakening from denial

March 24, 2016

Awakening from denial, Israel Hayom, Ariel Bolstein, March 24, 2016

In the hours after the Brussels attacks, Belgium was a country in shock. The train stations were flooded with uniformed security forces, some of them soldiers in full combat gear. But alongside their impressive equipment, there was an obvious lack of purpose in their deployment on the ground. They too did not know what to do, nor what to defend against.

The next day, this feeling seemed to grow stronger. The authorities appeared to be doing what was expected of them: They published the terrorists’ names, they carried out arrests, they declared three days of mourning, and they made statements full of determination and national unity. But nobody dared to ask aloud: Determination against what? And unity in the face of whom?

High school students stood for a moment of silence in the Market Square in Bruges. Passers-by scribbled messages of strength, love and peace on the pavement outside the Brussels Stock Exchange. But not a word was said about those who are not interested in love and peace.

As befits a country that loves visual expression (Belgian comics, anyone?), Belgian media responded to the attacks with a wave of caricatures and pictures that broadcast a message of unity. All the Belgian icons were recruited to the mission, from Tintin to the “peeing boy” statue and even Belgium’s famous potato fries. In one of the pictures, a figure holds a sign that reads, “We are all Belgium,” joined by a bunch of other figures holding signs that read, “We are all Paris,” “We are all Mali,” and “We are all Ankara.” The phrase “We are all Israel” was nowhere to be found. This total invisibility of Israeli terror victims was, of course, no coincidence.

There was also a notable absence of the words “radical Islam” in local media reports, despite the fact that the attacks were not random. The establishment prefers not to call the problem by its name. One could still think that the victims’ lives were claimed by some kind of natural disaster or chance occurrence. For years, political correctness has blinded Europeans, including the Belgians, and silenced every voice that didn’t toe the line.

Citizens saw more and more robes and burqas in the streets of Europe’s cities, but the elites sent out the message that everything was fine. Incitement flowed from the local mosques, but it was interpreted as the gentle breeze of multiculturalism. Western values began to retreat, and in many places, radical Islam dominated. Suddenly, even the police began to fear conflict with the thugs in the Muslim neighborhoods — and these saw that as a victory, a sign that they could get away with anything. First, there were attacks against the Jews. A cultural war brewed right under the noses of Belgium’s citizens, but they refused to take a closer look, despite the pungent odor of hatred that rose from the nests of radical Islam inside Europe.

And now, when the problem has gotten out of control, it seems that Belgium’s opinion leaders are still burying their heads in the sand. But that sand is no longer as pleasant and welcoming as it once was, and the echoes of the blasts can be heard through it. Yet, the sad reality is even more painful. The average person is starting to back away from the political correctness that does not provide security. Moreover, the average person is starting to understand that the enemy is not figurative — it has a name, and it subscribes to the ideology of radical Islam, even if those words are censored by the media.

“We are in shock, but this shock has helped us understand you, the Israelis,” a Brussels train conductor told me quietly after asking where I was from. Perhaps this is the beginning of the awakening from denial.

The Obama Doctrine Applied

March 23, 2016

The Obama Doctrine Applied, Power LineScott Johnson, March 23, 2016

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks in Brussels yesterday, President Obama gave a previously scheduled speech in Havana “To the People of Cuba.” The speech contrasts rather starkly with the speech suggested by Professor Carlos Eire in “The speech never given,” to the detriment of Obama’s speech.

Obama’s speech wasn’t all bad. Though full of nauseating palaver, it had a good paragraph or two. To the mostly nauseating palaver and gratuitous autobiographical reflections in the prepared text of the speech, Obama tacked on formulaic vacuities to acknowledge the morning’s events in Brussels:

Before I begin, please indulge me. I want to comment on the terrorist attacks that have taken place in Brussels. The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium. We stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people. We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally, Belgium, in bringing to justice those who are responsible. And this is yet another reminder that the world must unite, we must be together, regardless of nationality, or race, or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism. We can — and will — defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world.

That’s it. The White House posted video of Obama’s remarks on the attacks here. The video runs for 51 seconds.

Having given the speech, President Obama kept his previously scheduled date with Raul Castro to attend the Rays-Cuba baseball game in Havana. At the game Obama schmoozed with Castro. What a sickening sight. On the plus side, however, Obama didn’t throw out the opening pitch.

Obama commented on the attacks in Brussels to ESPN during the game (video below, about ten minutes). He didn’t appear to be to broken up about them.

“This is just one more example of why the entire world needs to unite against these terrorists,” Obama said. “The notion that any political agenda would justify the killing of innocent people like this is something that’s beyond the pale.” Obama imputes a simply “political agenda” to the attack. Their religious inspiration has been drained from them.

Obama explained why he attended the game as planned: “It’s always a challenge when you have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, particularly in this age of 24/7 news coverage, you wanna be respectful and understand the gravity of the situation but the whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives.”

 

 

One of the illuminating passages in Jeffrey Goldberg’s compilation of the wit and wisdom of Barack Obama addresses the subject of terrorism. When it comes to terrorism, this is “the Obama doctrine.” Cool out and learn to live with it. His attitude is complacent. His take on ISIS to Valerie Jarrett represents it: “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off.”

Goldberg adds: “Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ ‘resilience’ in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its ‘proper’ perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.”

Islam must of course be kept out of the equation. Obama hesitates to confide in us regarding the contribution of Islam to the jihad with which we are contending. We can’t be trusted to deal fairly with it. Goldberg reports that those who speak with Obama about jihadist thought say that he possesses a no-illusions understanding of the forces that drive apocalyptic violence among radical Muslims, but he has been careful about articulating that publicly, out of concern that he will exacerbate anti-Muslim xenophobia (i.e., “Islamophobia”).

The ESPN interview adds Obama’s irritated observation on the role of cable news in aggravating our concerns about terrorism. Taken together, his comments to the ESPN interviewers perfectly represent the application of the Obama doctrine on terrorism to the Brussel attacks.

Race is never far from Obama’s mind. Let me insert here this stray quotable quote from the ESPN interview (my transcription): “Now we still have a long way to go. You know, that’s true in everyday life; it’s true in our sports. You know, if you look at the number of African-American managers, if you look at the number of Latino managers, in baseball, or owners, obviously there’s still a carryover from the past.”

Via Daniel Halper/Weekly Standard.

16 Killed in Ivory Coast – How It Affects Me

March 14, 2016

16 Killed in Ivory Coast – How It Affects Me, Clarion Project, Elliot Friedland, March 14, 2016

Ivory-Coast-AQIM-Attack-640Soldiers evacuated the wounded following the attack. (Photo: © Reuters)

“The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attack in Cote d’Ivoire in the Grand Bassam,” U.S. Department of State Spokesman John Kirby said of the attack which killed 16 people in the beach town of Grand Bassam. “We send our thoughts and prayers to all affected by this senseless violence.”

The six gunmen were killed by security forces.

Firstly, violent loss of life anywhere in the world is tragic and matters on a human level. But terrorist attacks like this one have more direct political and security consequences for Americans as well as the human tragedy.

So what does this latest terrorist atrocity mean for you?

The group which carried out the attacks, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), previously attacked hotels in Mali and Burkina Faso.

It is trying to position itself to show its ability to hit targets internationally, in an attempt to strengthen itself against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. An ability to carry out high-profile international terrorist attacks is one of the metrics by which jihadis judge the potency of a group, which helps it in further recruitment. Four of those killed in the terrorist attack were Westerners, including a French and German national, according to the BBC. This will be useful to AQIM in showing it can hit the West.

Problems of violent Islamist movements creating unrest and seizing territory in parts of Africa and the Middle East are extremely detrimental to short-term and long-term American interests.

In the short term, countries like Ivory Coast are developing countries which are seeking to trade more with the West. Attacks like this one are a setback to their economy and therefore detrimental to international trade as a whole.

In the long term, the growth of Islamist and jihadist groups like AQIM must be checked at some point, because they ultimately seek to take over the world. Every victory they gain anywhere in the world is a loss to America because it strengthens their movement.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter which specific group carried out the attack. Attacks will continue across the world until the Islamist ideology is defeated.

The defeat of any given terrorist group militarily will not be enough to halt the violence until the ideology that fuels the growth of these movements is defeated.

CAIR: No Terror Orgs in US

March 11, 2016

CAIR: No Terror Orgs in US, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, March 11, 2016

islamberg-fuqra-ryan-newsmax(Screenshot from the broadcast)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)‘s downplaying of Islamist extremism has reached a new low. In a contentious segment on Newsmax TV with Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro, a CAIR-FL representative made the outrageous claim that no terrorist organizations have existed in the U.S. since 2001.

The segment on DML Unfiltered (Watch the segment below), hosted by Dennis Michael Lynch, was centered on Jamaat ul-Fuqra (now known as Muslims of the Americas), an extremist group with a history of terrorism that claims to have 22 “Islamic villages.”

Mauro showed exclusively-obtained photos from a law enforcement raid on one such “village” in Colorado in 1992, where authorities discovered hidden stockpiles of arms, including in underground tunnels. The group was also in the process of building a satellite communications system. Many of the group’s other “villages” continue to operate.

Mauro then mentioned that CAIR is now intertwined with MOA/Fuqra. CAIR-FL’s Communications Director Wilfredo Ruiz responded with an outrageous claim that “there has not been a terrorist group operating in America since 2001 because of the effectiveness of our intelligence and law enforcement.”

Mauro debunked the claim by pointing out that not only have terrorist networks been exposed since 2001, but CAIR itself is part of one of them. The Justice Department says CAIR is an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network and listed it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of another Brotherhood entity for financing Hamas.

Wilfredo also misrepresented a newspaper account based on a think-tank study purporting to show

right-wing terrorism is a bigger threat than Islamist terrorism. He claimed this was the official opinion of the intelligence community (and here’s a strong rebuttal to that study).

You can read the Clarion Project’s fully-documented profile of CAIRhere. We have a separate profile specifically for CAIR’s Florida branch here that shows its history of extremism.

Before joining the Brotherhood/Hamas-linked CAIR, Ruiz was a senior official for another radical group led by a Hamas supporter. The head of the American Muslim Association of North America is Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout.

Investigative reporter Joe Kaufman, chairman of Americans Against Hate, exposed Zakkout’s extremism several times. Zakkout promoted horrendous anti-Semitic propaganda, glorified Hamas and terrorism against Israeli civilians on social media,  justified the murder of those who leave Islam and  even wrote in Arabic, “You’re a Jew, the grandson of a monkey and pig.”

 

Our ISIS Problem is also our Saudi Arabia Problem

March 9, 2016

Our ISIS Problem is also our Saudi Arabia Problem, WNDWilliam Murray, March 8, 2016

H/t The Counter Jihad Report

ISIL, or ISIS, now calling itself the Islamic State, is part of a continuing Sunni Muslim problem. Here is some real history to counter current media perceptions paid for by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Ask the media or any Democratic or Republican senator, and they will tell you that Shiite Muslims (or Shia) are the greatest threat faced by Western civilization today. Besides Sen. John McCain, current presidential candidates Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have referred to the Shiite threat in virtually every stump speech, often citing the “Shia Crescent” that runs from Iran through Iraq and Syria and ending in Lebanon. Rubio constantly refers to “our Sunni allies such as Saudi Arabia” and has suggested the creation of a Sunni state in Syria. Apparently, the senator is, as is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unaware that there is already a Sunni state in northern Syria, and it is run by the Islamic State, otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL.

The Sunni Islamic State does have a competitor in Syria, al-Nusra, which is part of al-Qaida and also a Sunni terror organization. The Army of Islam operating in Syria is also a Sunni terror organization supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. During battles between al-Nusra and the Islamic State, American-led coalition aircraft have supported Sunni al-Nusra, which is al-Qaida. Which Sunni group to back in the Syrian civil war is always a question for the White House.

In 2015 most of the 17,000 civilians killed in Iraq died at the hands of Sunni terrorists. That is 10 times the number killed in the Sunni terror attack on 9/11. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were conducted by al-Qaida, a Sunni terror organization. The first terror attack on the Trade Center in 1993 was financed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Sunni cleric also associated with the Sunni terror group al-Qaida.

The 9/11 attack was planned by al-Qaida from Afghanistan, which at the time was controlled by the Taliban, a Sunni Muslim group dedicated to the elimination of Shiites and Christians.

Sunni groups, many funded by interests inside Saudi Arabia and Qatar, declared responsibility for the 2004 Madrid train bombings killing 191 and wounding over 1,800. A Sunni group took responsibility for the 2005 London bus bombings killing 52 and wounding 700. Sunni terror groups were responsible for the massacre of 334 people including 186 children during the 2004 attack on a school in Beslan, Russia, and also the Moscow theater attack in 2002. The various Paris attacks, including the 2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine and Jewish deli attacks over three days and a later attack in November on a theater and restaurants that killed 130, were conducted by the Islamic State, a Sunni Muslim organizations.

The Fort Hood terror attack in 2009 killing 13 plus an unborn child was conducted by Maj. Nidal Hasan, a Sunni Muslim connected to a “vetted” Sunni imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was allowed to speak at the Pentagon and Congress. Al-Awlaki and his son, both U.S. citizens, were killed by a drone strike though a death warrant issued by President Obama to shut him up lest he embarrass those at the Pentagon who had “vetted” him. He had been the imam at the Virginia mosque attended by some of the 9/11 hijackers.

There have been numerous “minor” terror attacks against Western targets, such as the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings that killed “only” three and wounded 264. The bombers were brothers from a family of Sunni Muslims who had immigrated legally to the United States from Chechnya, Russia. Other “small” attacks by Sunni Muslims in the United States include the following: A Sunni Muslim convert killed one at a Little Rock military recruiting center in 2009, and four Marines were killed by a Sunni Muslim immigrant in Chattanooga in 2015. Other attacks such as against a 2002 El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport have been downplayed as only three died.

Most recently in the United States was the 2015 San Bernardino massacre, which was carried out by a Sunni Muslim couple connected to Saudi Sunni extremists and influenced by the Islamic State. A total of 14 were killed and 22 wounded.

In Asia the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 mostly Australian tourists was orchestrated Jemaah Islamiyah, a Sunni Muslim organization seeking Shariah law in that nation. Sunni groups have bombed numerous churches in the Philippians, and Thailand suffers almost daily deaths by Sunni Muslim separatist organizations that want a breakaway state under Shariah law. China suffers numerous attacks from Sunni groups every year.

The most noted attack in India by Sunni Muslims from Pakistan was in 2008 when 10 members of Lashkar -e-Taiba, conducted 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks over four days, killing 164 people and wounding 308. A landmark hotel, the Taj Mahal Palace, was nearly completely destroyed.

The mass beheadings of 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya that outraged the press in the United States for a few days in 2015 were conducted by a Sunni terror group. All of the slaughter in this Hillary Clinton established “democracy” is being conducted by three Sunni Muslim factions.

Back to the “Shia threat” alluded to by Hillary Clinton, McCain, Cruz and Rubio as well as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. The last large scale Shia attack against the West was in 1983 against a military target in Lebanon at the U.S. military barracks, killing 299 American and French servicemen.

I have left Israel out of this analysis because it faces a Sunni threat from the south in Gaza and a Shia threat to the north. In line with the theology of the two groups, Sunni-oriented Hamas normally attacks civilian targets while Shia Hezbollah usually attacks military targets.

With this history, why does the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, as well as both liberal and conservative members of Congress and virtually all presidential candidates, say the greatest threat is from Shia Muslims?

The simple answer is that Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim, and most of the financing for Sunni extremist groups has come from Saudi Arabia, which is “our ally.” The initial funding for the revolt in Syria, which handed us the Islamic State problem, came from Saudi Arabia. Over $2 billion in arms were moved into Syria from Turkey and prepositioned before the initial Sunni uprising that to this day Obama and McCain insist was a secular revolt.

Some contend that only private elements within Saudi Arabia supported ISIS and never the Saudi government. Although Saudi Arabia may not directly support or fund ISIS, Saudi Arabia gives legitimacy to ISIS extremist ideology. Saudi textbooks are used in the ISIS-controlled schools in Syria and Iraq.

If we want to cut off the real head of the snake, the Islamic ideology that threatens the world through al-Qaida and the Islamic State today, we must shut down the educational funding source – and that is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia runs a close second to North Korea on human rights abuses and should be treated to the same sanctions and boycotts. All Saudi-printed literature and all funding of mosques and schools in the United States and Europe should be banned at once.

To stop ISIS, which is actually the second generation of al-Qaida, we must dig out the root which is Saudi Arabia.

Note: The preceding were William J. Murray’s prepared remarks for The Awakening, Orlando, Florida, March 5, 2016.

How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism

February 26, 2016

How American Soldiers Used Pig’s Blood and Corpses to Fight Muslim Terrorism, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 26, 2016

(Wouldn’t that suggest that terrorists are Muslims? Unthinkable! — DM)

mn

 

A century before American soldiers fought Muslim terrorism in the Middle East, they fought it in the Philippines. Their attackers were Moro Muslims whose savage fanaticism appeared inexplicable. A formerly friendly Muslim might suddenly attack American soldiers, local Muslim rulers promised friendship while secretly aiding the terrorists and the yellow left-wing press at home seized on every report of an atrocity to denounce American soldiers as murderers whose honor was forever soiled.

Much of what went on in that conflict, including the sacrifices of our soldiers, has been forgotten. The erasure has been so thorough that the media casually claims that the American forces did not use pig corpses and pig’s blood to deter Muslim terrorists. Media fact checks have deemed it a “legend”.

It’s not a legend. It’s history.

The practice began in the Spanish period. A source as mainstream as the New Cambridge History of Islam informs us that, “To discourage Juramentados, the Spaniards buried their corpses with dead pigs.”

Juramentados was the Spanish term for the Muslim Jihadists who carried out suicide attacks against Christians while shouting about Allah. American forces, who had little experience with Muslim terrorists, adopted the term and the Spanish tactics of burying Muslim terrorists alongside dead pigs.

It was a less sensitive age and even the New York Times blithely observed that, “The Moros, though they still admire these frenzied exits from the world, have practically ceased to utilize them, since when a pig and a man occupy a single grave the future of the one and the other are in their opinions about equal.”

The New York Times conceded that the story “shocked a large number of sensitive people,” but concluded that, “while regretting the necessity of adopting a plan so repugnant to humane ideas, we also note that the Moros can stop its application as soon as they choose, and therefore we feel no impulse either to condemn its invention or to advise its abandonment. The scheme involves the waste of a certain amount of pork, but pork in hot climates is an unwholesome diet, anyhow, and the less of it our soldiers and other ‘infidels’ in the Philippines have to eat the better for them.”

Colonel Willis A. Wallace of the 15th Cavalry claimed credit for innovating the practice in March 1903 to dissuade the Muslim terrorist who believed that “every Christian he kills places him so much closer in contact with the Mohammedan heaven.”

“Conviction and punishment of these men seemed to have no effect,” Colonel Wallace related. After a “more than usually atrocious slaughter” in the marketplace, he had the bodies of the killers placed on display and encouraged “all the Moros in the vicinity who cared to do so to come and see the remains”.

“A great crowd gathered where the internment was to take place and it was there that a dead hog, in plain view of the multitude, was lifted and placed in the grave in the midst of the three bodies, the Moro grave-diggers themselves being required to do this much to their horror. News of the form of punishment adopted soon spread.”

“There is every indication that the method had a wholesome effect,” Colonel Wallace concluded.

Colonel Wallace was certainly not the only officer to bury pigs with Muslim terrorists in the Philippines, though he was apparently the only one to discuss it in such great detail.

Medal of Honor winner Colonel Frank West buried three pigs with three Muslim terrorists after the murder of an American officer. He appears to have done so with the approval of General Perishing. Some stories mention Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry becoming so celebrated for it that he was known to Moro Muslims as “The Pig”. One contemporary account does describe him burying a pig with the corpse of a Muslim terrorist who had murdered an American soldier.

Rear Admiral Daniel P Mannix III had contended that, “What finally stopped the Juramentados was the custom of wrapping the dead man in a pig’s skin and stuffing his mouth with pork”.

Media fact checks have claimed that General John “Black Jack” Perishing would not have offended Muslims by authorizing such a course of action and that any claims of his involvement are also a legend.

General Perishing however wrote in his autobiography that, “These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig. It was not pleasant to have to take such measures, but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.”

We can be certain then that the practice of burying Muslim terrorists with pigs was indeed real and fairly widespread. Was pig’s blood also used on Muslim terrorists as a deterrent to prevent attacks?

The Scientific American described just such an event. In a hard look at the area, it wrote of a place where, “Polygamy is universally practiced and slavery exists very extensively. Horse stealing is punishable by death, murder by a fine of fifty dollars. The religion is Mohamedan.”

A Muslim terrorist, the magazine wrote, “will suddenly declare himself ‘Juramentado’, that is inspired by Mohammed to be a destroyer of Christians. He forthwith shaves his head and eyebrows and goes forth to fulfill his mission.”

The Scientific American described how a Muslim terrorist who had disemboweled an American soldier was made an example of. “A grave was dug without the walls of the city. Into this the murderer was unceremoniously dropped. A pig was then suspended by his hind legs above the grave and the throat of the animal cut. Soon the body lay immersed in gore… a guard stood sentry over the grave until dusk when the pig was buried side by side with the Juramentado.”

“This so enraged the Moros that they besieged the city. Matters became so grave that General Wood felt called upon to disperse the mob resulting in the death of a number of Moros.”

It is clear from these accounts which encompass General Perishing’s autobiography, the New York Times and the Scientific American that the use of pig corpses and pig’s blood in the Philippines was not a legend, but fact. It was not carried out by a few rogue officers, but had the support of top generals. It was not a single isolated incident, but was a tactic that was made use of on multiple occasions.

American forces in the Philippines faced many of the same problems that our forces do today. But they were often free to find more direct solutions to them. When Muslim rulers claimed that they had no control over the terrorists whom they had sent to kill Americans, our officers responded in kind.

“Shortly after General Bates’ arrival on the island, the Sultan sent word that there were some half dozen Juramentados in Jolo over whom he had no control. General Bates replied, ‘Six hundred of my men have turned Juramentado and I have no control over them.’”

Another version of this story by Rear Admiral Mannix III had Admiral Hemphill dispatching a gunboat to shell the Sultan’s palace and then informing him that the gunboat had “turned Juramentado”. As with pig corpses and blood, such blunt tactics worked. Unfortunately political correctness makes it difficult to utilize them today. And political correctness carries with it a high price in American lives.

It is important that we remember the real history of a less politically correct time when American lives mattered more than upsetting those whom the New York Times deemed “sensitive people” and what another publication dismissed as the “sensitive spirit” of the Muslim terrorist.

But as that publication suggested, “It is not necessary to go into spasms about the insult to the Mahometan conscience. Every Christian that walks the earth is a living insult to that ‘sensitive spirit’”.

“The murderer may feel that he is unduly treated by being defiled with the touch of the swine, but he can avoid it by refraining from becoming a practical Juramentado. Our sympathies, if anywhere, are with the innocent pig slaughtered for such a purpose and buried in such company.”

These days we do not bury pigs with Muslim terrorists. Our political and military leaders shudder at the thought of Muslims accusing us of blasphemy. And so instead we bury thousands of American soldiers.

Obama blasts bullying, ignores beheading

January 16, 2016

Obama blasts bullying, ignores beheading, Washington Times, Newt Gingrich, January 14, 2016

ye_2015_top_10_stories_c24-0-1854-1067_s885x516EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – This image made from video posted online April 19, 2015 by supporters of the Islamic State militant group on an anonymous photo sharing website, members of an IS affiliate walk captured Ethiopian Christians along a beach in Libya. The video purportedly shows two groups of captives: one held by an IS affiliate in eastern Libya and the other by an affiliate in the south. A masked militant delivers a long statement before the video switches between footage that purportedly shows the captives in the south being shot dead and the captives in the east being beheaded on a beach. (Militant video via AP, File)

The 2016 State of the Union address was very striking for the one-sidedness and disproportion of the president’s concern for religious suffering.

President Obama worried that “politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or fellow citizens.”

But he couldn’t bring himself to worry aloud about the Christians being driven from Middle Eastern countries, the churches being burned from Nigeria to Malaysia, or the 22 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on video on a beach in Libya by Islamic supremacists.

Insulting Muslims: bad. Killing Christians: irrelevant.

The president went on to say that when “a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer, it diminishes us in the eyes of the world.”

Why is our civilization — or Islamic civilization, for that matter — diminished by name-calling, when the real damage to both is being done by virulent, violent Islamic supremacism? (After all, the vast majority of Muslims being violently killed are killed by Islamic supremacists.)

The president saw fit to blast bullying in his State of the Union speech, but he said nothing of the beheadings that leave Americans justifiably afraid. Nor did he mention San Bernardino — the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 — where the attack occurred just over a month ago.

If calling a kid names is bad enough to diminish us all, how does the President feel about the incident in France this week, in which a Muslim student in Marseille pulled out a machete and tried to kill his Jewish teacher? Indeed, the situation in France is so hostile to Jews that the leader of the Jewish community in Marseille advised that they should stop wearing yarmulkes because it makes them targets. Not since the Nazis have Jews been told it is dangerous to be overtly Jewish in a European country.

Moreover, if calling a kid names diminishes us all, how would the president characterize the hundreds of assaults and rapes of German women by immigrants over New Years? How would he describe the German media’s and German government’s efforts to censor the news so that people would not know about it?

The president talks about “telling it like it is,” but neglects to mention the thousands of women and girls sold into sexual slavery by ISIS. He says that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but offers no strategy for ending the brutal rule of ISIS over millions of people.

Finally, the president highlighted his delusions about the dangers of the real world at the close of his speech, when he said that he was optimistic that “unarmed truth … will have the final word.”

This is a wonderful phrase for a preacher.

It is a terrible phrase for a commander-in-chief.

Unarmed truth would have its head cut off by ISIS.

Unarmed truth would be sold into slavery by Boko Haram.

Unarmed truth would be massacred by Al-Shabab.

It is a sad reality that while President Obama is very sympathetic to the plight of Muslims, he is stunningly silent about the plight of Jews and Christians.

It is a frightening reality that President Obama has no idea how dangerous the world would be if truth did not have the protection of the American military.

This was a very disturbing State of the Union speech — an address that explains much of our current danger.

Hungarian Paper Slams Merkel: ‘No Bastards On Earth More Abominable Than Liberal Pigs Digging Europe’s Grave’

January 14, 2016

Hungarian Paper Slams Merkel: ‘No Bastards On Earth More Abominable Than Liberal Pigs Digging Europe’s Grave’ Breitbart, Sarkis Zeronian, January 14, 2016

MERKEL-640

East European political leaders and their media allies have attacked ‘politically correct’ Germans in the wake of the New Year’s Eve migrant sex assaults in Cologne and other cities, labelling the assailants “nothing but hyenas”.

In a huge “we told you so” gesture, politicians from across Eastern Europe have turned their fire on the German state’s welcoming and tolerant attitude to the migrant crisis. Having warned Chancellor Merkel that her actions and the politically correct tyranny of media opinion risked bringing Europe to ruin, they now feel vindicated by events in Cologne, reports Spiegel Online.

Robert Fico, the left-nationalist Prime Minister of Slovakia, told a televised debate that the media plays down the problem as migrants are a “protected species”. Using Cologne to support his argument, he has called for an urgent EU summit to deal with the cultural and security issues thrown up by the ongoing migrant crisis, including the creation of “parallel societies”.

Mr. Fico said Slovakia would not tolerate women being insulted in the streets, nor insular Muslim communities. In his support, Slovakian media outlets slammed the politically correct media in Germany and a naive “subculture of do-gooders”.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán feels equally vindicated. He used the occasion of his weekly radio broadcast to speak of the crisis in liberalism that meant reporting the sex assaults in Cologne had been suppressed in Germany. He said it showed that the media is more free to speak in Hungary than in the West, and that his government is right to be calling for a halt to immigration.

The strongest language was used by Zsolt Bayer, a friend of Mr. Orbán and co-founder of his Fidesz Party. Writing for Magyar Hirlap the journalist known for his trenchantly right-wing views described the Cologne assailants as “North African and Arabic animals – nothing but hyenas”. He added that Mrs. Merkel is letting her family and children get eaten by them.

Another Hungarian media outlet, the quasi-official government newspaper Magyar Idök, wrote:

“There are no bastards on this earth more abominable and more destructive than these liberal pigs who are digging Europe’s grave.”

In Romania, former President Traian Basescu said his country, like other Eastern European nations, would oppose a European Union quota system for refugees. He said Muslim migrants were brought up in the spirit of the Koran and could not adapt to European culture.

The leading Conservative-Liberal Romanian MEP Traian Ungureanu has described Mrs. Merkel and her open-door invitation to Germany as the “disaster of the century”. He also criticised “official censorship” of the events of Cologne he says prevails in Germany, adding:

“Every protest, every hint against gang rape is immediately classified as racism or extremism. It is the duty of public bodies to hide the facts and to deny.”