Archive for the ‘Islamic supremacy’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mandatory Muslim immigration in the EU

September 24, 2015

Mandatory Muslim immigration in the EU, Front Page Magazine, Arnold Ahlert, September 24, 2015

syria (1)

Third Worldism, in all its attendant dysfunction, is “breaking the door down on top of us,” even as our unconscionable leaders bemoan those who resist the cultural Armageddon it represents. Leaders whose ongoing love affair with multiculturalism is nothing more than an apology for the Western culture they disdain, even as millions of those Third Worlders are irresistibly drawn to its cornucopia of bounty and beneficence. Bounty and beneficence they will ultimately undermine with the blessings of the apologists who, despite this massive flow of humanity in only one direction, believe no culture is better than any other. It doesn’t get more ironic—or suicidal—than that.

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

On Tuesday, national sovereignty gave way to mandatory multiculturalism in the European Union. A plan to relocate an additional 120,000 Middle Eastern migrants was imposed by EU ministers over the objections four Eastern European countries adamantly opposed to the plan. Slovakia’s Robert Fico illuminated the resistance. “As long as I am prime minister, mandatory quotas will not be implemented on Slovak territory,” he declared in Bratislava.

Slovakia was joined by the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary. Finland abstained from the vote. Yet despite the quartet’s disapproval, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, led by France and Germany, pushed through the plan proposed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker during his annual State of the Union address in Strasbourg earlier this month. The plan called for 160,000 migrants to be forcibly redistributed from Italy, Greece and Hungary to all other member states, save Britain, Ireland and Denmark, who remain exempt from EU treaties. In addition, Junker called for a review of the “Dublin system” that determines which EU nation is responsible for asylum claims.

In order to make the plan more politically palatable, 66,000 migrants are currently slated for relocation, joining 40,000 migrants approved for asylum in July. The remaining 54,000 had originally been allocated to Hungary where they are currently camped out. But Budapest refused to abide a plan it characterized as an invitation to economic migrants. Thus, those migrants will be reallocated in 2016, possibly among Greece, Italy, Croatia and Austria, bringing the overall total of relocated migrants to 160,000. The plan is ostensibly limited to Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean asylum-seekers, but the details have yet to be worked out. All of those migrants are people who have purportedly crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey and northern Africa, fleeing the unrelenting violence in Iraq and Syria.

Luxembourg minister and meeting chairman Jean Asselborn stated that ministers “would have preferred to have an agreement by consensus,” but nonetheless expected objectors to fall into line as required by the law. Germany has been the focus of resentment on the issue, no doubt due to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Sept. 7 announcement that her nation would take 800,000 refugees this year at a cost of $6.6 billion ,and 500,000 per year over the next few years. Less than a week later, German interior minister Thomas de Maizière announced Germany would be imposing border controls in the southern part of the nation for what Merkel called “urgent security reasons.” Austria and Slovakia followed Germany’s lead shortly thereafter as wishful thinking gave way to the inconvenient reality of as many as half a million migrants flooding into the EU.

The plan itself, whereby the tens of thousands of migrants landing in Italy and Greece will be involuntarily moved by their respective national police forces to other EU nations is the epitome of wishful thinking. Those police forces are already overwhelmed, and the plan to relocate migrants bore little resemblance to the reality expressed by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHRC), which insists 120,000 people represents just six days’ worth of arrivals at the current influx rate. “A relocation programme alone, at this stage in the crisis, will not be enough to stabilise the situation,” insists UNHRC spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.

Fleming is correct. After Hungary closed it border, refugees headed west towards Croatia, and that nation allowed tens of thousands to cross into Europe. Now Croatia has blocked off part of its border with Serbia, because they can’t process migrants fast enough. It noted that 35,000 migrants crossed its border in the week following the Hungarian shutdown. In the Austrian town of Nickelsdorf, 8000 new arrivals filled the town square, as local officials insisted no accommodations were available because existing camps were full. And of the more than 4 million migrants that remain in countries near Syria, at least 270,000 Syrians have requested asylum in Europe.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban expressed the sense of frustration felt by many in the EU. “They are overrunning us,” he told his nation’s Parliament. “They’re not just banging on the door, they’re breaking the door down on top of us. Our borders are in danger, our way of life built on respect for the law, Hungary and the whole of Europe is in danger. Europe hasn’t just left its door open but has sent open invitation… Europe is rich but weak, this is the worst combination, Europe needs to be stronger to defend its borders.” Hungary has passed a law allowing the army to use rubber bullets, tear gas and net guns to maintain control over migrants on its border.

Unsurprisingly Orban was criticized by European colleagues, such as Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek, who, prior to Tuesday’s meeting, declared Eastern European foreign ministers were “absolutely dedicated” to finding a solution with their EU partners. Since the Czech Republic was one of four nations utterly opposed to the agreement, such optimism was short-lived. “Soon we will find out that the emperor has no clothes,” he tweeted after the plan was announced. “Reason lost today.”

One suspects reason was never in play. As The Telegraph’s Janet Daley warned earlier this month, European elitists have used the now famous image of a dead child washed up on a Turkish beach “to support the notion of Western guilt,” even as Bashar Assad’s murderous regime gets a pass. “For some reason, the appalling photographs of the bodies of children who had been deliberately gassed by the Assad regime, laid out on a concrete floor in Syria two years ago, were not sufficiently moving to compel the world to take action,” she writes. “Are dead children only a moral outrage when they are on the beaches of Europe?”

Elitist outrage is more like it, as Daley notes Germany’s magnanimity, which they and other economically advanced EU nations can afford, stands in stark contrast to the economically struggling eastern bloc nations that must initially accommodate that high-mindedness. “Imagine if you were a poor householder, just managing to keep your financial head above water while you attempted to turn your circumstances around, and a very wealthy neighbour decided to throw open his doors to the needy – and one obvious way that those in need could reach that welcoming haven was by tramping through your house,” Daley explains. “Might you find yourself inclined to be unhelpful in the hopes of discouraging others from taking the same path?”

Millions of ordinary Americans are undoubtedly pondering the same question. In addition to the hordes of illegals embraced by our own ruling class, the Obama administration intends to “significantly increase” the number of “worldwide migrants” this nation takes in over the next two years, reaching a total of 100,000 by 2017. Apparently the reality that the legal and illegal immigrant population in the United States has reached a record-breaking 42.6 million, or about one-out-of-eight residents in the U.S.—more than double what it was in 1980—remains insufficient with regard to the “fundamental transformation of the United States” the American left desires. And while the similar elitist-driven multicultural force-feeding devolving the Europe ethos is much more immediate, make no mistake: both are equally inexorable should current trends on both sides of the Atlantic continue.

In Europe, the bill is coming due for a continent that largely relied on America to do the heavily lifting in response to Islamic terrorism, even as it remained largely contemptuous of the “vulgarities” associated with a military response to the problem. America is facing the twin deficits of a ruling class determined to shove illegal immigration down the throats of a recalcitrant public, and a feckless Obama administration whose foreign policy of phony red lines in Syria, leading from behind in Libya, untimely troop withdrawal in Iraq, and the apparent determination to manipulate intelligence regarding ISIS in the administration’s favor, has precipitated the largest refugee crisis since WWII.

It is a refugee crisis tailor made for ISIS and other Islamic terror groups to exploit with impunity. On both continents, Third Worldism, in all its attendant dysfunction, is “breaking the door down on top of us,” even as our unconscionable leaders bemoan those who resist the cultural Armageddon it represents. Leaders whose ongoing love affair with multiculturalism is nothing more than an apology for the Western culture they disdain, even as millions of those Third Worlders are irresistibly drawn to its cornucopia of bounty and beneficence. Bounty and beneficence they will ultimately undermine with the blessings of the apologists who, despite this massive flow of humanity in only one direction, believe no culture is better than any other. It doesn’t get more ironic—or suicidal—than that.

Categories: Asylum seekers, Death to Europe, Europe, European Union, Free world, Germany, Hijrah, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Progressives
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama Throws Christian Refugees to Lions

September 24, 2015

Obama Throws Christian Refugees to Lions, Gatestone Institute, Raymond Ibrahim, September 24, 2015

  • Why are Christian minorities, who are the most to suffer from the chaos engulfing the Middle East, the least wanted in the United States?
  • To the Obama administration, the only “real” refugees are those made so due to the actions of Bashar Assad. As for those who are being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved based on their religious identity by so-called “rebel” forces fighting Assad — including the Islamic State — their status as refugees is evidently considered dubious at best.
  • The Obama administration never seems to miss an opportunity to display its bias for Muslims against Christians. The State Dept. is in the habit of inviting scores of Muslim representatives but denying visas to solitary Christian representatives. While habitually ignoring the slaughter of Christians at hands of Boko Haram, the administration called for the “human rights” of the jihadi murderers.
  • In Islamic usage, the “cause of Allah” is synonymous with jihad to empower and enforce Allah’s laws on earth, or Sharia. In this context, immigrating into Western lands is a win-win for Muslims: if they die in the process somehow, paradise is theirs; if they do not, the “locations and abundance” of the West are theirs.
  • Muslims all around the U.S. are supporting the Islamic State and Muslim clerics are relying on the refugee influx to conquer Western nations, in the Islamic tradition of Hijrah, or jihad by emigration.

The fate of those Iraqi Christians who had fled from the Islamic State only to be incarcerated in the United States has finally been decided by the Obama administration: they are to be thrown back to the lions, where they will likely be persecuted, if not slaughtered, like so many Iraqi Christians before them.

Fifteen of the 27 Iraqi Christians that have been held at a detention center in Otay Mesa, California, for approximately six months, are set to be deported in the coming weeks. Some have already been deported and others are being charged with immigration fraud.

Many of the Iraqi Christian community in San Diego — including U.S. citizen family members vouching for the refugees — had hopes that they would eventually be released. Mark Arabo, a spokesman for the Chaldean community, had argued that “They’ve escaped hell. Let’s allow them to reunite with their families.” One of the detained women had begged to see her ailing mother before she died. The mother died before they could reunite, and now the daughter is to be deported, possibly back to the hell of the Islamic State.

1261Members of California’s Iraqi Christian community and their supporters protest the months-long detention of Iraqi Christian asylum-seekers at the Otay Mesa detention center. (Image source Al Jazeera video screenshot)

Why are Christian minorities, who are the most to suffer from the chaos engulfing the Middle East, the least wanted in the United States?

The answer is that the Obama administration defines refugees as people “persecuted by their government.” In other words, the only “real” refugees are those made so due to the actions of Syrian President Bashar Assad. As for those who are being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved based on their religious identity by so-called “rebel” forces fighting Assad — including the Islamic State — their status as refugees is evidently considered dubious at best.

As Abraham H. Miller argues in “No room in America for Christian refugees“:

“What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians? Christians are still be[ing] slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them. Does some group have to come along — as Jewish groups did during the Holocaust — and sardonically guarantee that these are real human beings?”

In fact, from the start of Western meddling in the Middle East in the context of the “Arab Spring, “Christians were demonized for being supportive of secular strongmen like Assad. In a June 4, 2012 article discussing the turmoil in Egypt and Syria, the Independent’s Robert Fisk scoffed at how Egyptian presidential candidate “Ahmed Shafiq, the Mubarak loyalist, has the support of the Christian Copts, and Assad has the support of the Syrian Christians. The Christians support the dictators. Not much of a line, is it?”

More than three years later, the Western-supported “Arab Spring” proved an abysmal failure and the same Christian minorities that Fisk took to task were, as expected, persecuted in ways unprecedented in the modern era.

The Obama administration never seems to miss an opportunity to display its bias for Muslims against Christians. The U.S. State Dept. is in the habit of inviting scores of Muslim representatives but denying visas to solitary Christian representatives. While habitually ignoring the slaughter of Christians at hands of Boko Haram, the administration called for the “human rights” of the jihadi murderers. And when persecuted Egyptian Copts planned on joining the anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution, Obama said no. Then there is the situation that every Arab nation the Obama administration has meddled in — for example, Libya and Syria — has seen a dramatic nosedive in the human rights of Christian minorities.

The Obama administration’s bias is evident even regarding the Iraqi Christians’ illegal crossing of the U.S.-Mexico border, the occasion on which they were arrested. WND correctly observes: “At the same time the Obama administration [is] deporting Christians, it has over the years allowed in hundreds of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East who crossed the Southern border the same way the Chaldeans did.”

Meanwhile, as the Obama administration nitpicks at the definition of refugee and uses it against severely persecuted Christian minorities, it turns out that four out of five migrants — or 80 percent — are not even from Syria.

And while Christian minorities pose little threat to the United States — indeed, they actually bring benefits to U.S. security — Muslims all around the U.S. are supporting the Islamic State and Muslim clerics are relying on the refugee influx to conquer Western nations, in the Islamic tradition of Hijrah, or jihad by emigration. As Koran 4:100 puts it:

And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him — his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah.

In Islamic usage, the “cause of Allah” is synonymous with jihad to empower and enforce Allah’s laws on earth, or Sharia. In this context, immigrating into Western lands is a win-win for Muslims: if they die in the process somehow, paradise is theirs; if they do not, the “locations and abundance” of the West are theirs.

All the while, the Obama administration is turning away Christian refugees fleeing the same hostile Muslim forces as Muslims — who are being welcomed into America and Europe.

Categories: Asylum seekers, Christians, Dishonor, Europe, Foreign policy, Freedom, Human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on Christians, Islamism, Multiculturalism, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Political correctness, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Iraqi Columnist: Why Aren’t Muslim Clerics Calling For Jihad Against ISIS?

September 24, 2015

Iraqi Columnist: Why Aren’t Muslim Clerics Calling For Jihad Against ISIS? Middle East Media Research Institute, September 15, 2015

(The author contends that there are three possible reasons for their relative silence: 1. They are cowards, 2. they believe that its interpretation of Islam is correct or 3. “their regimes are involved in the actions of ISIS and they are unable to disobey their leaders.” I’ll go with 2 and just a dash of 3. — DM)

In his July 9, 2015 column, titled “Why Won’t They Declare Jihad Against ISIS? Secularists and Infidels Are More Zealous for Islam than the Sheikhs,” in the Arabic internet daily Raialyoum.com, Kurdish-Iraqi columnist Anas Mahmoud Al-Sheikh Mazhar harshly criticized Muslim clerics for their apathy and silence in the face of ISIS and its actions, and wondered whether they should not declare jihad and struggle against the organization in light of the dangers it posed. He added that Muslim clerics should be ashamed of themselves, particularly considering that foreign politicians and armies have rushed to defend Islam from ISIS. The following are excerpts from his column:[1]

24825Anas Mahmoud Al-Sheikh Mazhar (Source: Facebook.com, May 16, 2015)

The Muslim Clerics’ Silence In Face Of ISIS Actions Is Incomprehensible

“In the past, we were accustomed to seeing clerics ascend to mosque pulpits and launch their lofty sermons with attacks on the mistaken policies and actions of the politicians in their countries… All the preacher had to do was to raise his voice and shout, and the worshippers and listeners would moan and cry ‘Allah Akbar’ after every word emerging from his throat. Thus, the measure of a preacher’s skill was his ability to attack government policy. Preachers would compete vigorously amongst each other, and the leading mosques were those that frequently dealt with politics and attacked [politicians].

“This ‘fashion’ continued until ISIS emerged and took over large swaths of the [Middle East] region. Then, as though ordained by fate, these voices fell silent. Their interest in politics waned, and religious matters took up more of their sermons – and not only in the mosques. The clerics and preachers filling the TV channels [also] dealt mainly with the life and times of the Prophet [Muhammad], with religious laws and affairs, and with questions concerning the afterlife and its horrors, to the point where viewers must have felt that they were living in an entirely different world.

“In light of the circumstances in the region, and in light of the plot against Islam being carried out by extremist organizations that have twisted this tolerant religion and replaced it with one consumed by murder, slaughter, floggings, and chopping off of hands, we see Islam’s sheikhs and clerics living in enviable peace and complacency, paying no heed to the perplexed Muslims, who by now are confused about their faith and no longer know right from wrong.

“How can clerics who consider themselves zealous about their religion remain silent as the grave, in light of the events in the region and the acts against Islam that these organizations are committing? Could it be that we are wrong and that the true Islam is the one that ISIS preaches? If this is Islam, why be ashamed to admit it[?] And if it is not, why are they refraining from telling the truth?

“Some may say that most Muslim clerics have expressed anti-ISIS positions. This is true, but can such a grave problem be addressed merely with [weak] verbal opposition, without a serious and determined stand that reflects this opposition? We have seen clerics conduct major popular campaigns against matters that are trivial, to say the least, and devote all their time and resources to [these matters]. But faced with the problem of twisting the religion, they settle for [mere] verbal objections, and provide them only when directly asked to do so.

“It is strange that some of the ‘sheikhs of Islam’ encouraged the Arab peoples’ enthusiasm to topple their rulers during the Arab Spring – issuing fatwas calling for jihad against them, even though the Arab rulers’ crimes did not compare to despicable crimes of ISIS. Over the decades [of their rule,] tyrannical Arab regimes did not distort Islam the way ISIS has over the past three years. It is also strange that some sheikhs were enraged when the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt was ousted, since it is at best a political group or faction. These sheikhs described those who made this change [the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood regime] as infidels who have left Islam, and even incited the Egyptian people against their new government and declared jihad against it – yet they are silent in light of the actions of these terrorist organizations who are trying to topple Islam as a religion, not just some party or group. Doesn’t the danger posed by ISIS require them to declare jihad against it?”

Shame On You For Remaining Silent In Light Of The Dangers Of ISIS – While “Infidels” Protect Us

“There are three possible explanations for their silence in light of the phenomenon and behavior of ISIS:

“One – the sheikhs and preachers of Islam are cowards and dare not speak the truth, fearing that extremist organizations will kill them, leading them to act in contradiction to their [own] sermons, which encourage telling the truth even at the cost of one’s life.

“Two – they [believe] in their hearts that this is Islam, and are [therefore] pleased by the actions of these extremist groups and believe in them. Therefore, regimes and security mechanisms should treat these sheikhs like any other terrorist, and apply the terrorism laws to them.

“Three – their regimes are involved in the actions of ISIS and they are unable to disobey their leaders. Therefore they follow these leaders at the expense of the truth, without feeling that the responsibility is on their shoulders as clerics. This makes them hypocrites.

“If we give the clerics the benefit of the doubt, and choose the first option – i.e. that they are motivated by fear, even though this is a shameful option – we say to them: Shame on you for standing by and playing blind, deaf, mute, and dumb – while armies, nations, and peoples that you have termed infidels rush to defend us and our religion, even if they are also defending themselves. It is shameful that the European politicians [whom you call] ‘infidels’ come out to purge the Islamic arena of this extremist ideology, and that secular Arab artists [whom you call] ‘murtadoun‘ [apostates] criticize ISIS actions that deviate from the straight path – while you hide behind mosque pulpits and utter not a sound, as though it does not concern you.

“You wretches… Have you no shame?”

Endnote:

[1] Raialyoum.com, July 9, 2015.

Categories: Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamism
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Saudi Arabia: World’s Human Rights Sewer

September 21, 2015

Saudi Arabia: World’s Human Rights Sewer, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, September 21, 2015

(This must be a premature April Fools Day joke. There have been several others recently, including criticisms of Donald Trump for not rebuking, correcting and silencing someone who claimed that Obama is a Muslim and of Dr. Ben Carson for saying he would not support a Muslim for President. Yeah, they must all be just sick jokes. I wish. — DM)

Saudi Arabia has been appointed as the head of a key UNHRC panel. This panel selects the top officials who shape international standards in human rights; it is intended to report on human rights violations around the world. The five-member group of ambassadors, which Saudi Arabia will now head, is known as the Consultative Group and has the power to select applicants to fill more than 77 positions worldwide that deal with human rights issues.

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

  • Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, sentenced to be crucified, was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses — despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge, and he was denied access to lawyers. Al-Nimr is also alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody.
  • Not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone — in 2015 — whom they tortured into making a confession; they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest.
  • Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world’s foremost human rights sewers.
  • Crucifixion is a punishment which, it would appear, is not only Sharia-compliant but also — we must assume — Geneva-compliant.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva is an organization that may be easy to critique, but it is very hard to satirize. Ordinarily, if you told anyone that there was a place in Switzerland where Sudan, Iran and others of the world’s worst dictatorships and human rights abusers have their views on human rights treated with respect and deference, you would assume the script was written by Monty Python. Idi Amin would make an appearance at some point to share his views on how to improve equal conditions for women in the workplace. Pol Pot would crop up in order to castigate those countries where living standards had not been sufficiently raised in accordance with global averages.

Everything that happens in Geneva is beyond satire. But last week provides a demonstration, outrageous even by the standards of the UN. For this week, it came out – thanks to the excellent organization UN Watch — that Saudi Arabia has been appointed as the head of a key UNHRC panel. This panel selects the top officials who shape international standards in human rights; it is intended to report on human rights violations around the world. The five-member group of ambassadors, which Saudi Arabia will now head, is known as the Consultative Group and has the power to select applicants to fill more than 77 positions worldwide that deal with human rights issues. It appears that the appointment of Saudi Arabia’s envoy to the UNHRC, Faisal Trad, was made before the summer, but that diplomats in Geneva have kept silent on the matter since then.

That this appointment had to leak out months after the event raises the possibility that the UNHRC, contrary to popular perception, actually does have some sense of shame. Otherwise, why not shout from the rooftops that Saudi Arabia has won this prestigious position? Why not distribute a press release? After all, Saudi Arabia — and by extension the UNHRC — have nothing to be ashamed of, do they?

Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world’s foremost human rights sewers. Saudi Arabia may have beheaded more people in the last year than ISIS, but only rarely do any of these cases get more than a flicker of international attention. Occasionally a case breaks above the waves of public opinion. One such case is that of the jailed blogger Raif Badawi, sentenced last year to 10 years in jail and 1000 lashes for “insulting Islam.” The plight of Raif Badawi, who has already been served the first 50 lashes, and is being held in prison while awaiting the rest, has garnered international attention and condemnations of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom’s response has been strongly to denounce “the media campaign around the case.”

But the glare of international opinion clearly disturbs the Saudi authorities — a fact well worth keeping in mind. And it is not as though they have nothing to hide. This week brings a case that should get at least as much attention as that of Raif Badawi.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was just 17 when he was arrested by the Saudi authorities in 2012, during a crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shia province of Qatif. He was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses — despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge. Denied access to lawyers, al-Nimr is alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody. Campaigners say that it seems he has been targeted by authorities because of his family association with Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the 53-year-old critic of the Saudi regime who is his uncle. The Sheikh has also been convicted and sentenced to death. After the confession and “trial,” his nephew was convicted at Saudi’s Specialized Criminal Court and sentenced to death. The trial itself failed to meet any international standards. Al-Nimr appealed against his sentence, but this week that appeal was dismissed. It now seems likely that he and his uncle will now be executed. Because charges include crimes involving the Saudi King and the state itself, it seems likely that the method of death will be crucifixion.

1255Imprisoned Saudi dissidents Raif Badawi (left) and Ali Mohammed al-Nimr (right).

If this were in any way to cause a flicker of concern among other participants in the UNHRC farce going on Geneva, they have at least some consolation. For in Saudi Arabia crucifixion is not what it used to be. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia crucifixion begins with the beheading of the victim and only then the mounting of the beheaded body onto a crucifix, to make it available for public viewing. This is a punishment which it would appear is not only Sharia-compliant but also — we must assume — Geneva-compliant.

Of course, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr counts as having been a juvenile at the time of his arrest, so not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone — in 2015 — whom they tortured into making a confession – they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest. Perhaps the authorities at the UNHRC in Geneva do indeed blush when they appoint Saudi officials to head their human rights panels. But it does not seem to affect their behaviour. Just as Saudi authorities think it is “international attention” rather than flogging people to death or crucifying them after beheading that is the problem, so the UNHRC in Geneva seems to think it is public awareness of their grotesque appointments rather than the appointments themselves that are the problem.

The international attention paid to the case of Raif Badawi has not yet seen him released, but it seems to have delayed the next rounds of lashes. Which suggests the Saudi authorities have the capacity to feel some shame. This should in turn be a cause for some hope among everyone who cares about human rights. It should also provide a reminder to everyone to increase global attention on the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and the many others like him who suffer under a government and judicial system that should utterly shame the world outside Geneva, even if it cannot shame the UN.

Categories: Dishonor, Doctor Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Executions, Human rights, Islamic supremacy, Multiculturalism, Saudi Arabia, Sick jokes, UN Human RIghts Council
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 10 Comments

U.S. soldiers ordered to ignore Afghan allies’ abuse of boys

September 21, 2015

U.S. soldiers ordered to ignore Afghan allies’ abuse of boys, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 20, 2015

(“It’s their culture, so it’s cool. Don’t get involved.” The (non-Islamic) Islamic State is also a manifestation of Islamic culture. Should our we be required to ignore it as well? — DM)

 

What are we in Afghanistan for, if not to stand for our own values and the principles of human rights? Instead, U.S. officials are aiding and abetting the destruction of these boys’ lives — and in the case of Lance Corporal Buckley, sacrificing our own troops. This is beyond shameful.

“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18

“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20

Gregory-Buckley

“U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys,” by Joseph Goldstein, New York Times, September 20, 2015:

KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militia to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.
Gregory Buckley Sr. believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore pedophilia by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander….

The American policy of nonintervention was intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflected a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.

Some soldiers believed that the policy made sense, even if they were personally distressed at the sexual predation they witnessed or heard about.

“The bigger picture was fighting the Taliban,” a former Marine lance corporal reflected. “It wasn’t to stop molestation.”

Still, the former lance corporal, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid offending fellow Marines, recalled feeling sickened the day he entered a room on a base and saw three or four men lying on the floor with children between them. “I’m not a hundred percent sure what was happening under the sheet, but I have a pretty good idea of what was going on,” he said.

But the American policy of treating pedophilia as a cultural issue has often alienated the villages whose children were being preyed upon. The pitfalls of the policy emerged clearly as American Special Forces soldiers began to form Afghan Local Police militias to hold villages that American forces had retaken from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011.

By the summer of 2011, Captain Quinn and Sergeant Martland, both Green Berets on their second tour in northern Kunduz Province, began to receive dire complaints about the Afghan Local Police units they were training and supporting.

First, one of the militia commanders raped a 14- or 15-year-old girl whom he had spotted working in the fields. Captain Quinn informed the provincial police chief, who soon levied punishment. “He got one day in jail, and then she was forced to marry him,” Mr. Quinn said.

When he asked a superior officer what more he could do, he was told that he had done well to bring it up with local officials but that there was nothing else to be done. “We’re being praised for doing the right thing, and a guy just got away with raping a 14-year-old girl,” Mr. Quinn said.

Village elders grew more upset at the predatory behavior of American-backed commanders. After each incident, Captain Quinn would gather the Afghan commanders and lecture them on human rights.

Soon another commander absconded with his men’s wages. Mr. Quinn said he later heard the commander had spent the money on dancing boys. Another commander murdered his 12-year-old daughter in a so-called “honor killing” for having kissed a boy.“There were no repercussions,” Mr. Quinn recalled.

In September 2011, an Afghan woman, visibly bruised, showed up at an American base with her son, who was limping. One of the Afghan police commanders in the area, Abdul Rahman, had abducted the boy and forced him to become a sex slave, chained to his bed, the woman explained. When she sought her son’s return, she herself was beaten. Her son had eventually been released, but she was afraid it would happen again she told the Americans on the base.

She explained that because “her son was such a good-looking kid, he was a status symbol” local commanders coveted, recalled Mr. Quinn, who did not speak to the woman directly but was told about her visit when he returned to the base from a mission later that day.

So Captain Quinn summoned Abdul Rahman and confronted him about what he had done. The police commander acknowledged that it was true, but brushed it off. When the American officer began to lecture about “how you are held to a higher standard if you are working with U.S. forces, and people expect more of you,” the commander began to laugh.

“I picked him up and threw him onto the ground,” Mr. Quinn said. Sergeant Martland joined in, he said. “I did this to make sure the message was understood that if he went back to the boy, that it was not going to be tolerated,” Mr. Quinn recalled….

Sergeant Martland, who received a Bronze Star for valor for his actions during a Taliban ambush, wrote in a letter to the Army this year that he and Mr. Quinn “felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our A.L.P. to commit atrocities,” referring to the Afghan Local Police.

The father of Lance Corporal Buckley believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death, and he has filed a lawsuit to press the Marine Corps for more information about it.

Lance Corporal Buckley and two other Marines were killed in 2012 by one of a large entourage of boys living at their base with an Afghan police commander named Sarwar Jan.

Mr. Jan had long had a bad reputation; in 2010, two Marine officers managed to persuade the Afghan authorities to arrest him following a litany of abuses, including corruption, support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, the police commander was back with a different unit, working at Lance Corporal Buckley’s post, Forward Operating Base Delhi, in Helmand Province.

Lance Corporal Buckley had noticed that a large entourage of “tea boys” — domestic servants who are sometimes pressed into sexual slavery — had arrived with Mr. Jan and moved into the same barracks, one floor below the Marines. He told his father about it during his final call home.

Word of Mr. Jan’s new position also reached the Marine officers who had gotten him arrested in 2010. One of them, Maj. Jason Brezler, dashed out an email to Marine officers at F.O.B. Delhi, warning them about Mr. Jan and attaching a dossier about him.

The warning was never heeded. About two weeks later, one of the older boys with Mr. Jan — around 17 years old — grabbed a rifle and killed Lance Corporal Buckley and the other Marines.

Lance Corporal Buckley’s father still agonizes about whether the killing occurred because of the sexual abuse by an American ally. “As far as the young boys are concerned, the Marines are allowing it to happen and so they’re guilty by association,” Mr. Buckley said. “They don’t know our Marines are sick to their stomachs.”

The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.

Categories: Afghanistan, Culture, Department of Defense, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Human rights, Ideology, Islamic perversions, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Multiculturalism, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 15 Comments

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs

September 21, 2015

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, September 21, 2015

(Isn’t it shameful that Dr. Carson is a politically incorrect “Islamophobe?” What is that, anyway?

Don’t we want another a Muslim in the White House? Then Obama could be truly proud of America. What could possibly go wrong? — DM)

ben-carson

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

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

If Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has any say in the matter, whoever the next President is, it won’t be Ben Carson. “He is not qualified to be president of the United States,” fumed CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, no doubt an unimpeachable authority on who is and is not qualified to be President, on Sunday. “You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.” What views? Carson said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He said that this was because Islam contradicted important Constitutional principles.

CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, sent out an email Sunday saying it would hold a news conference demanding that Carson withdraw from the presidential race for daring to say these things. “Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’” said CAIR top dog Nihad Awad. “We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

But the problems with a Muslim being President aren’t religious, they’re political. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law.

No one, that is, except the Muslim clerics who agree with Carson. Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar said in March 2009: “Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ” — because in Islamic thought, only Allah legislates.

Abd Al-Karim Bakkar was reflecting a common view. Pakistan Muslim leader Sufi Muhammad said in May 2009: “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy.” Mesbah Yazdi, leader of the Shia Taliban in Iran, said in September 2010 that “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” — in Islam, that is. Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Saddiq Conlan said in June 2011: “Democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”

In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”

Some Muslims in the West hold these views as well. In April 2015, Muslims in Wales plastered Cardiff with posters reading: “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires. This leads to a decayed and degraded society where crime and immorality becomes widespread and injustice becomes the norm. Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

And two Muslim groups in Denmark last June called on Muslims to boycott the elections that were held that month. One explained: “We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms, without compromising our own principles and values. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and it is a sinking ship.” The Grimshøj mosque in Aarhus agreed, issuing a statement saying that “people should stay clear of the voting booths. We have concluded that only Allah can pass laws, as he says himself in the Koran that this is so.”

Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat. A Jew can’t be a Nazi and a Nazi can’t be a Judeophile.”

Question for Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hooper and Awad: are all these Muslims “Islamophobes” for saying that Islam and democracy are incompatible, or is that honor reserved only for Carson (and other infidels)? And are either or both of you cognizant of the irony of pretending to uphold Constitutional values while demanding that a man drop out of the Presidential race for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech? Are either or both of you aware that you have thereby just become poster children for how correct Ben Carson really was?

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

Categories: CAIR, Doctor Ben Carson, Freedom, Hamas, Human rights, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Obama's affinity for Islam, Political correctness, Sharia law, Theocracy, U.S. 2016 elections, U.S. politics, U.S. President, Western media
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Mahmoud Abbas: Jews “Have No Right to Defile the Al-Aqsa Mosque with Their Filthy Feet”

September 21, 2015

Mahmoud Abbas: Jews “Have No Right to Defile the Al-Aqsa Mosque with Their Filthy Feet,” MEMRI-TV via You Tube, September 20, 2015

(This is the video, released with an English translation today, noted in an article titled Abbas: “Filthy” Jews’ Feet Not Allowed on Temple Mount. — DM)

 

Categories: Abbas, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Filthy Jews, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic supremacy, Israel, Jerusalem, Muslims, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Religion of Peace, Temple Mount, Two state solution
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Migration Crisis: Germany Wants to Be “Miss Congeniality”

September 20, 2015

Migration Crisis: Germany Wants to Be “Miss Congeniality,” Gatestone Institute, Vijeta Uniyal, September 20, 2015

(Please see also, U.S. to Increase Admission of Refugees to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry Says. — DM)

  • Chancellor Merkel today seems to be promising nothing less than absolution for Germany’s sins of the Holocaust. The problem is, of course, that Muslims are quite different from Jews.
  • German media outlets have suppressed the stories of rampant rape and child abuse among the migrants housed in government-run accommodations.
  • The editor-in-chief defended her decision to suppress the rape story on public TV broadcaster ZDF: “We don’t want to inflame the situation and spread the bad mood. [The migrants] don’t deserve it.” That the poor rape victim deserved justice was apparently of no concern to the broadcaster.
  • Germany under Chancellor Merkel wants to play “Miss Congeniality” at the global scale, and wants Europe to pick up the tab.

Overwhelmed by the unprecedented influx of migrants, Germany has imposed temporary border controls. This temporary halt in new arrivals is “intended to give Germany a chance to catch its breath while at the same time ratcheting up the pressure on other European Union member states to accept a quota system for the distribution of asylum recipients across the bloc,”according to Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann of the German state of Bavaria on public radio. Germany’s move to tighten its border controls, however, is not going to halt millions of migrants already mobilized by Berlin’s suspension of existing asylum rules and its open border policy in the first place.

Horst Seehofer, the leader of Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavaria-based sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU), painted a grim picture, saying that Merkel’s open border policy “was a mistake that will occupy us for a long time yet. I see no possibility of putting the stopper back into the bottle.”

German media is in lockstep with the government, giving happy-talk and a positive spin on migrant crisis of gigantic proportions hitting Europe.

German newspapers and media outlets have suppressed the stories of rampant rape and child abuse among the migrants housed in government-run accommodations. In a recent letter addressed to the Minister of Integration and Social Affairs in the state of Hesse, prominent women’s organizations have described the culture of rape and violence perpetuated by male migrants — right under the nose of German authorities. The letter states:

“It is a fact that women and children [at HEAE accommodation facility, under the supervision of Administrative District of Giessen] are unprotected. This situation is opportune to those men who already regard women as their inferior and treat unaccompanied women as ‘fair game.’ As a consequence, there are reports of numerous rapes, sexual assaults and increasingly of forced prostitution. … These are not isolated incidents.”

According to the letter, women were terrified to walk in the camp even during the day.

The letter, signed by leading officials organizing the settlement of the migrants in the state of Hesse, went virtually unreported in the German media.

For now, the German media can afford to ignore these crimes, committed in makeshift transit centers — away from the public eye. How do the media plan to suppress this reality once some of these criminals are released into communities? Here is a foretaste of the things to come:

Recently the Germany’s top public broadcaster ZDF refused to run a segment about a rape case on its prime time crime show, “Aktenzeichen XY,” which helps law enforcement to gather leads from the general public, on the grounds that the alleged fugitive was of a “darker skin” and might fit the profile of a migrant. The editor-in-chief, Ina-Maria Reize-Wildemann, defended her decision: “We don’t want to inflame the situation and spread the bad mood. [The migrants] don’t deserve it.” That the poor rape victim deserved justice was apparently of no concern to the broadcaster.

Mainstream media in Germany are not merely willing executioners of Merkel’s open border policy, they are ideological players committed to breaking any opposition to the plan.

1253Commenting on Germany’s acceptance of hundreds of thousands of migrants, the popular mainstream newsmagazine Der Spiegel last week portrayed Chancellor Merkel as a Mother Theresa-like figure (left). Pictured at right, a German policeman leads a group of newly arrived migrants.

Germany wants to dictate its stand on migration to other EU member states. First Germany wrecked the existing legal framework by unilaterally suspending the Dublin Protocol, and now it wants Europe to shoulder a “fair share” of migrants who are stampeding into Europe — encouraged by Berlin’s irresponsible stance to begin with.

Chancellor Merkel today seems to be promising nothing less than absolution for Germany’s sins of the Holocaust. “The world sees Germany as a land of hope and opportunities,” she says. “That hasn’t always been the case.” The problem is, of course, that Muslims are quite different from Jews.

German politicians and EU Commissars, however, seem hell bent on imposing quotas on member states – harkening back to the heyday of Soviets jackboots running the Eastern bloc. It may only be a matter of time until some of the reluctant East European states start complying, possibly forced by economic threats and sanctions from Brussels and Berlin.

Germany under Chancellor Merkel wants to play “Miss Congeniality” at the global scale and wants Europe to pick up the tab.

Categories: Asylum seekers, Europe, European Union, Germany, Hijrah, Holocaust, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Kerry, Merkel, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Have the media become selectively “Islamophobic?”

September 20, 2015

Have the media become selectively “Islamophobic?” Dan Miller’s Blog, September 20, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

 

Although claiming repeatedly that Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance, otherwise good and therefore welcome in America, the media are horrified that Donald Trump failed to “correct” the “highly offensive” claim by a member of the audience at a New Hampshire rally that Obama is a Muslim. 

The media and others also seem to be offended by the parallel claim that Obama is not a Christian. However, Islam and Christianity have very different theological foundations and share very few beliefs. Hence, if Obama is a Muslim, He cannot also be a Christian.

True, Obama has occasionally claimed to be a Christian; if He is instead a Muslim He has lied about being a Christian. He has also lied about many other things, including Obamacare and, more recently, the nuke “deal” with Iran.

Barack Mitsvah

The claim that Obama is a Muslim seems to have produced significantly more media outrage than claims that He lied about Obamacare, the nuke “deal” and other topics. Perhaps in Obama’s America presidents are expected to lie as a matter of routine. Had Trump’s questioner merely claimed that Obama is not a Christian, without also claiming that He is a Muslim, would the outrage have been less? It seems to me that the major problem is that Trump’s questioner claimed that Obama is a Muslim.

If what we read in the press and hear on television is true (and I don’t think it is), being a Muslim is per se good. According to Obama, Islam helps to make His America great. Is it among the very few aspects of American exceptionalism of which He is proud?

Muslims don’t generally live in flyover regions (except in some jihad training compounds), clinging to their guns and bibles. Would Obama think better of Christians in flyover regions if they were to cling instead to their beheading implements and Qurans? What if they dealt with homosexuals (and political dissidents of all types) as do Iran (the peace partner featured in Obama’s nuke “deal”) and other Islamic countries?

Clerks of court in Iran don’t refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals; torturing and hanging them (along with other regime opponents) must be politically correct and, therefore, acceptable.

Islamic reality, on which Obama and the media are generally silent aside, why should Trump be disparaged for failing to come to Obama’s defense by denying that He is a Muslim? What sort of defense would that be? Hasn’t Obama told us that Christians (unlike Muslims) are warlike and bad (please see the next to last video at the end of this post.)

Is being called a Muslim worse than being called a sexual predator?

Sometimes, presidents are accused of doing very bad things. President Clinton was accused of being a sexual predator. In western countries, sexual predation of any sort is often considered undesirable — although less so when the predators are Muslims who believe that Mohamed had the right ideas about sex.

Please see also Ayan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography, Infidel. Much of it is about sex in the Muslim world where women are born to be submissive to men, who own them.

Hillary immediately came to her husband’s defense and blamed the accusations of sexual predation on a vast right wing conspiracy.

For some, former President Clinton remains a highly respected Democrat.

Are claims that Obama is a Muslim also part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, which all right-thinking people, Republicans as well as Democrats, should publicly reject, admonish and silence? Jeb Bush and several other RINOs seem to think so.

Is Obama a Muslim?

I don’t know whether Obama is a Muslim. I do understand that He appears to have substantially more affinity for that religion than for any other and is far more likely to defend Islam than to defend Christianity, Judaism or any other religion.

Is many Islamic countries, Christians, Muslims and the few remaining Jews are being persecuted in the most vicious ways conceivable by Muslims. Why are the asylum and immigration policies of Obama’s America so different for Christians, Jews and Muslims?

Might the differences be on account of Obama’s destructively great affinity for Islam? Does He agree with this preacher that Muslim males who migrate to previously non-Islamic countries should help to make them Islamic by breeding with local women to produce Muslim children? Wouldn’t that make Obama even more proud of His America?

I guess we can’t permit Obama to be insulted. Right? Wrong!

Categories: Caliphate, Christianity, Christians, Clintons, Democrats, Donald Trump, Europe, Foreign policy, Hijrah, Human rights, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on Christians, Islamic war on women, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jeb Bush, Jews, Judaism, Lies, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Political correctness
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Top imam: Muslim migrants should breed with Europeans to “conquer their countries”

September 18, 2015

Top imam: Muslim migrants should breed with Europeans to “conquer their countries,” Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson, September 18, 2015

(Infowars generally presents unfounded conspiracy theories and I generally ignore them and it. This article, however, appears to be appropriately sourced and legitimate. As the MEMRI-TV blurb beneath the video states,

In an address delivered at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Ayed said that the European countries are not motivated by compassion toward the refugees, but by their need for labor. “We shall conquer their countries,” he declared in the address, which was posted on the Internet on September 11, 2015.

— DM)

Top Iman Sheikh Muhammad Ayed recently gave a speech in which he asserted that Muslims should use the migrant crisis to breed with European citizens and “conquer their countries”.

 

 

Speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Ayed stated that European countries were not rolling out the red carpet for migrants because they were compassionate, but because Europe was in dire need of a new source of labor.

“Europe has become old and decrepit and needs human reinforcement….they are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people and its refugees,” said Ayed, adding, “Soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing.”

“Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst,” he added.

“We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries!”

Ayed stated that “whether you like it or not,” Americans, Italians, Germans and the French will be forced to take the “refugees”.

“We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: these are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you,” concluded Ayed.

Ayed correctly outlines the fact that Europe is facing demographic disaster because its citizens have stopped having children.

Italy’s current birth rate of 8.4 per 1,000 people is the lowest since 1861 and the picture is much the same across the rest of Europe, where population is only increasing as a result of mass immigration.

Birth rates in the west are far lower than those in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, which is where most of the migrants are coming from.

The notion of using mass migration as a form of stealth jihad is outlined in the Koran, which states, “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance.”

“To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act,” writes Robert Spencer.

 

 

Categories: Asylum seekers, Caliphate, Fertility, Hijrah, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Muslims, Tribal mentality
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »