Islamisation | WarSclerotic | Page 25

Archive for the ‘Islamisation’ category

Islamophobia Forum Features Panelists Linked to Terror and Bigotry

May 20, 2016

Islamophobia Forum Features Panelists Linked to Terror and Bigotry, Front Page Magazine, Joe Kaufman, May 20, 2016

>address>

This month, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) will be sponsoring a panel discussion about Islamophobia. Islamophobia is a modern-day term used mainly by Islamists to describe an unwarranted fear or hatred of Islam and/or Muslims and a term also used by the like to, more appropriately, shut down any conversation about the radical element found within the Muslim community. Not surprisingly, the majority of the event’s panel is made up of those linked to terrorism and bigotry, themselves.

The title of the forum, which is scheduled to take place at FAU in Boca Raton, on May 23rd, is ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA, Voices from the Muslim Community.’ The flyer for the event displays the photos of five panelists, at least three of which have known ties to terrorism. They are Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, the imam of the Darul Uloom mosque, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida; Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, the legal counsel for the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); and Bassem Abdo Alhalabi (al-Halabi), an Associate Professor at FAU.

Shafayat Mohamed is the imam at Darul Uloom. He founded it in October 1994. Since then, it has become a haven for al-Qaeda associates. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student at Darul Uloom. Now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader there. And Darul Uloom Arabic teacher Imran Mandhai, Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan hatched an operation at the mosque to blow up different structures, including area power stations, Jewish businesses, and a National Guard armory.

Shafayat Mohamed, himself, has been thrown off a number of boards in Broward County due to his outspokenness against homosexuals. In February 2005, an article written by him was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God.’ In it, he claims that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. Shafayat Mohamed’s article doesn’t just target homosexuals. It also attacks Jews and Christians. In the piece, he claims that most Jews and Christians, whom he refers to as “People of the Book,” are “perverted transgressors.”

Another of the Islamophobia forum participants is Wilfredo Ruiz. Ruiz is the attorney for CAIR-Florida.

CAIR was established in June 1994 as part of a terrorist umbrella group headed by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named by the US Justice Department a co-conspirator for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. Since its founding, a number of CAIR representatives have served jail time and/or have been deported from the United States for terrorist-related crimes. In November 2014, CAIR, itself, was designated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government.

CAIR-Florida reflects the extremism of its parent organization. In August 2010, CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly, who has denied that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, wrote, “Israel and its supporters are enemies of God…” In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where rally goers shouted, “We are Hamas”and “Let’s go Hamas.” Following the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Zakkout, wrote, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”

Ruiz is also the legal advisor for Zakkout’s group, the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA). AMANA regularly promotes white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. In fact, the latest posting on AMANA’s Facebook page is an anti-Jewish David Duke video. In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned AMANA for posting onto its website homepage another anti-Semitic Duke video. The ADL described the video as being “venomous.” The video was posted right above an expose about Ruiz.

A third participant at the Islamophobia forum is Bassem Abdo Alhalabi.

Bassem Alhalabi has been an Associate Professor at FAU’s Department of Computer Science and Engineering, since August 2002. Prior to arriving at FAU, Alhalabi was located in Tampa at the University of South Florida (USF), working as an assistant to USF Professor Sami al-Arian, while al-Arian was a leader in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Alhalabi co-authored publications with al-Arian and, when applying to FAU, he used al-Arian as a reference. In May 2006, al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison, after pleading guilty to providing services to PIJ.

Alhalabi has been in trouble with the law, himself. In March 2010, Alhalabi was arrested for physically assaulting two individuals during a Muslim Capitol Day function in Tallahassee, Florida. The assaults took place an hour apart from one another. And in June 2003, the US Department of Commerce charged Alhalabi with illegally shipping a $13,000 military-grade thermal imaging device to Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Alhalabi is a Director and co-founder of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR). During his leadership, for three years, the ICBR website had an essay prominently posted on it, stating, “Jews are people of treachery and betrayal… As the Muslims and Jews are enemies residing in opposing religious and doctrinal camps, it is not possible for them to be brought together unless one is made to submit to the other by force… [Muhammad] said, ‘You will fight the Jews and will prevail over them, so that a rock will say, O Muslim! There is Jew behind me, kill him!’”

The contact for the FAU event is Abdur Rahman al-Ghani (aka Samuel Pittman), Events Coordinator for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF). Al-Ghani’s Facebook is littered with anti-American, anti-Jewish and Islamic supremacist language and images. In December 2012, he wrote, “Zionist/Israelis are not holy people. They are demonic and the most evil on earth.” In March 2012, he posted a graphic stating, “ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD.” And in February 2012, he posted a bloodied CIA logo with the caption, “Wiping out the CIA.”

While the FAU event wishes to portray Muslims as having suffered from the prejudice of others (‘Islamophobia’), it seems that those involved in the event are immersed in bigotry, themselves, where homosexuality is professed to cause natural disasters, where white supremacist David Duke is placed on a pedestal, where Christians are cursed, and where Jews are labeled “demonic” and okay to murder.

‘Islamophobia,’ in the eyes of those behind the FAU forum, in reality, is not a way for people to learn about the suffering within the Muslim community – not at all. Instead, Muslim victimhood is being used as a vehicle to silence those who look to expose their and their terror supporting compatriots’ sinister words and deeds.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Categories: CAIR, Hamas, Islam and homosexuality, Islam and Jews, Islam and terrorism, Islamic charities, Islamic indoctrination, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Union
Tags: CAIR, Hamas, Islam and homosexuality, Islam and Jews, Islam and terrorism, Islamic charities, Islamic indoctrination, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Association

Comments: Be the first to comment

Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam

May 18, 2016

Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 18, 2016

Quran and Islam

In the Washington Post, Petraeus complained about the “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.” The former general warned that restricting Muslim immigration would “undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”

At Rutgers, Obama claimed that restricting Muslim immigration “would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism.”

If we alienate Muslims, who is going to help us fight Muslim terrorism?

You can see why Obama doesn’t mention Islamic terrorism in any way, shape or form. Once you drop the “I” word, then the argument is that you need Islam to fight Islam. And Muslims to fight Muslims.

This is bad enough in the Muslim world where we are told that we have to ally with the “moderate” Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Muslim terrorists whom they sponsor.

Petraeus has troublingly close ties to the Saudis. He defended their oil dumping program, praised the role of Islamic law in fighting Islamic terrorism and endorsed their Syria plans. While defending the Saudis as allies, he blamed Israel for America’s problems with the Muslim world. The narrative he was using there was the traditional Saudi one in which Israel, not Islam, is the source of the friction.

He defended Pakistan as an ally and claimed to believe the Pakistani excuses that they did not know Osama bin Laden was living right in their military center and that they really wanted to fight the Taliban.

Obama’s “partners” against “violent extremism” have included Muslim Brotherhood terror supporters at home and abroad. He backed Al Qaeda’s LIFG in Libya, Iran’s Shiite terror militias in Iraq, Al Qaeda allies in Syria and those are just a few of the worst examples of his partners against extremism.

Petraeus and Obama view terrorists and state sponsors of terror as important allies. Their policies have led to multiple terrorist attacks against Americans. And they still insist that we need Islamic terrorists as allies to protect us from Islamic terrorists. We need moderate theocrats to protect us from extremist theocrats. We need the Saudis and Pakistanis to save us from the terrorists whom they arm and fund.

But it’s Muslim immigration where their argument really shines.

The United States faces a terror threat because a certain percentage of the Muslim population will kill Americans. Every increase in the Muslim population also increases the number of potential terrorists. Muslim immigration increases the terrorism risk to Americans every single year.

These are undeniable facts.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.

Even if the mainstream narrative about a moderate majority and extremist minority were true, how could the cost of Islamic terrorism justify the expansion of even moderate Muslim communities?

9/11 cost us $3.3 trillion, over 10,000 dead, a national loss of privacy and traumas inflicted on millions. What could any number of moderate Muslims possibly contribute to outweigh all that? If it were a debt, it would take a thousand years to even begin balancing out those scales. And instead of trying to make amends, Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA have waged a relentless campaign to undermine national security and defame Americans. They have refused to cooperate with law enforcement, defended terrorists and denounced America. These are our “moderate” partners.

But the Obama/Petraeus narrative about needing partners in Muslim communities in America implicitly concedes that Muslim communities at home, like the Saudis and Pakistanis abroad, create environments in which Islamic terrorists can safely operate. They admit the existence of Islamic no-go zones where the FBI and local law enforcement are ineffective so that we have to treat parts of Michigan or New Jersey like Pakistan or Iraq, trying to work with untrustworthy allies to gain intelligence on enemy territory.

We have to work with CAIR or ISNA, the way we do with the Saudis or Pakistanis, even though they’re untrustworthy, because they’re all we have in parts of America that have become enemy territory.

This argument is terrible enough in the Middle East. But it’s horrifying in the Midwest.

It’s bad enough that we sign off on “partners” who finance terrorists and then pretend to fight them in Syria or Afghanistan, do we really want to be doing this in Illinois or California?

The real problem, as Obama and Petraeus indirectly concede, is that Muslim communities create an ideal environment for Muslim terrorists. The last thing that we should be doing is building them up.

Even if Muslim communities were an asset, the Obama/Petraeus narrative is that they benefit us by helping us deal with the problems that they cause. The obvious question would be to wonder why we need them in the first place to help us cope with a problem that wouldn’t exist without them.

Obama insists that we need Muslim immigration so that Muslims will help us fight Muslim terror. But if we didn’t have Muslim immigration, we wouldn’t need Muslims to help us fight Muslim terrorism.

Muslim immigration isn’t a solution. It’s a problem posing as a solution. And we are told that we need to make the problem bigger in order to solve it. Muslim immigration has yet to reduce terrorism in any country. The increase in Muslim populations has not made Europe any safer. On the contrary, it has increased the risk of terrorism. The same is also true in Africa, Asia and across the Middle East.

The plan to reduce the risk of terrorism by increasing the Muslim population has failed around the world. Nor has it ever worked in the United States. What are the odds that it suddenly will now?

Building a counterterrorism strategy around creating more terrorism is not a strategy, it’s a suicide mission. Using Muslim immigration to fix a terrorism problem caused by Muslim immigration is like drilling a hole in a boat and then trying to plug it with water. Europe is sinking and if we don’t stop importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, we’ll be facing the same problems that Europe does.

“It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric,” Petraeus insists. It’s a compelling argument, but not in the way that he thinks it is.

If Muslims can’t handle the full spectrum of argument, debate and namecalling that is a part of life in a free country without turning homicidal, then something has to go. According to Petraeus, it’s freedom of speech. According to others, it’s Muslim migration. Americans will have to decide whether they would rather have freedom of speech or Muslim immigration. Because even the advocates for Muslim migration are increasingly willing to admit that we can’t have both. The choice is ours.

Either we can hope that Islam will save us from Islam. And that Muslims will protect us from other Muslims. Or we can try to protect ourselves and save our lives and our freedoms from Islam.

Categories: CAIR, Foreign policy, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islam, Pakistan, Petraeus, Saudi Arabia
Tags: CAIR, Foreign Policy, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic terrorism, Islamisaion, Islamists in America, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islam, Pakistan, Petraeus, Saudi Arabia

Comments: 2 Comments

EU-Turkey Migrant Deal Unravels

May 18, 2016

EU-Turkey Migrant Deal Unravels, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, May 18, 2016

♦ “It can be expected that, as soon as Turkish citizens will obtain visa-free entry to the EU, foreign nationals will start trying to obtain Turkish passports … or use the identities of Turkish citizens, or to obtain by fraud the Turkish citizenship. This possibility may attract not only irregular migrants, but also criminals or terrorists.” — Leaked European Commission report, quoted in theTelegraph, May 17, 2016.

♦ According to the Telegraph, the EU report adds that as a result of the deal, the Turkish mafia, which traffics vast volumes of drugs, sex slaves, illegal firearms and refugees into Europe, may undergo “direct territorial expansion towards the EU.”

♦ “If they make the wrong decision, we will send the refugees.” — Burhan Kuzu, senior adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

♦ Erdogan is now demanding that the EU immediately hand over three billion euros ($3.4 billion) so that Turkish authorities can spend it as they see fit. The EU insists that the funds be transferred through international aid agencies in accordance with strict rules on how the aid can be spent. This prompted Erdogan to accuse the EU of “mocking the dignity” of the Turkish nation.

The EU-Turkey migrant deal, designed to halt the flow of migrants from Turkey to Greece, is falling apart just two months after it was reached. European officials are now looking for a back-up plan.

The March 18 deal was negotiated in great haste by European leaders desperate to gain control over a migration crisis in which more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East poured into Europe in 2015.

European officials, who appear to have promised Turkey more than they can deliver, are increasingly divided over a crucial part of their end of the bargain: granting visa-free travel to Europe for Turkey’s 78 million citizens by the end of June.

At the same time, Turkey is digging in its heels, refusing to implement a key part of its end of the deal: bringing its anti-terrorism laws into line with EU standards so that they cannot be used to detain journalists and academics critical of the government.

A central turning point in the EU-Turkey deal was the May 5 resignation of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who lost a long-running power struggle with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Davutoglu was a key architect of the EU-Turkey deal and was also considered its guarantor.

On May 6, just one day after Davutoglu’s resignation, Erdogan warned European leaders that Turkey would not be narrowing its definition of terrorism: “When Turkey is under attack from terrorist organizations and the powers that support them directly, or indirectly, the EU is telling us to change the law on terrorism,” Erdogan said in Istanbul. “They say ‘I am going to abolish visas and this is the condition.’ I am sorry, we are going our way and you go yours.”

Erdogan insists that Turkey’s anti-terrorism laws are needed to fight Kurdish militants at home and Islamic State jihadists in neighboring Syria and Iraq. Human rights groups counter that Erdogan is becoming increasingly authoritarian and is using the legislation indiscriminately to silence dissent of him and his government.

European officials say that, according to the original deal, visa liberalization for Turkish citizens is conditioned on Turkey amending its anti-terror laws. Erdogan warns that if there is no visa-free travel by the end of June, he will reopen the migration floodgates on July 1. Such a move would allow potentially millions more migrants to pour into Greece.

European officials are now discussing a Plan B. On May 8, the German newspaper Bild reported on a confidential plan to house all migrants arriving from Turkey on Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. Public transportation to and from those islands to the Greek mainland would be cut off in order to prevent migrants from moving into other parts of the European Union.

Migrants would remain on the islands permanently while their asylum applications are being processed. Those whose asylum requests are denied would be deported back to their countries of origin or third countries deemed as “safe.”

The plan, which Bild reports is being discussed at the highest echelons of European power, would effectively turn parts of Greece into massive refugee camps for many years to come. It remains unclear whether Greek leaders will have any say in the matter. It is also unclear how Plan B would reduce the number of migrants flowing into Europe.

1607

Thousands of newly arrived migrants, the vast majority of whom are men, crowd the platforms at Vienna West Railway Station on August 15, 2015 — a common scene in the summer and fall of 2015. (Image source: Bwag/Wikimedia Commons)

Speaking to the BBC News program, “World on the Move,” on May 16, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the British intelligence service MI6, warned that the number of migrants coming to Europe during the next five years could run into millions. This, he said, would reshape the continent’s geopolitical landscape: “If Europe cannot act together to persuade a significant majority of its citizens that it can gain control of its migratory crisis then the EU will find itself at the mercy of a populist uprising, which is already stirring.”

Dearlove also warned against allowing millions of Turks visa-free access to the EU, describing the EU plan as “perverse, like storing gasoline next to the fire we’re trying to extinguish.”

On May 17, the Telegraph published the details of a leaked report from the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union. The report warns that opening Europe’s borders to 78 million Turks would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the European Union. The report states:

“It can be expected that, as soon as Turkish citizens will obtain visa-free entry to the EU, foreign nationals will start trying to obtain Turkish passports in order to pretend to be Turkish citizens and enter the EU visa free, or use the identities of Turkish citizens, or to obtain by fraud the Turkish citizenship. This possibility may attract not only irregular migrants, but also criminals or terrorists.”

According to the Telegraph, the report adds that as a result of the deal, the Turkish mafia, which traffics vast volumes of drugs, sex slaves, illegal firearms and refugees into Europe, may undergo “direct territorial expansion towards the EU.” The report warns: “Suspect individuals being allowed to travel to the Schengen territory without the need to go through a visa request procedure would have a greater ability to enter the EU without being noticed.”

While the EU privately admits that the visa waiver would increase the risk to European security, in public the EU has recommended that the deal be approved.

On May 4, the European Commission announced that Turkey has met most of the 72 “benchmarks of the roadmap” needed to qualify for the visa waiver. The remaining five conditions concern the fight against corruption, judicial cooperation with EU member states, deeper ties with the European law-enforcement agency Europol, data protection and anti-terrorism legislation.

European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans said:

“Turkey has made impressive progress, particularly in recent weeks, on meeting the benchmarks of its visa liberalization roadmap…. This is why we are putting a proposal on the table which opens the way for the European Parliament and the Member States to decide to lift visa requirements, once the benchmarks have been met.”

In order for the visa waiver to take effect, it must be approved by the national parliaments of the EU member states, as well as the European Parliament.

Ahead of a May 18 debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg over Turkey’s progress in fulfilling requirements for visa liberalization, Burhan Kuzu, a senior adviser to Erdogan, warned the European Parliament that it had an “important choice” to make.

In a Twitter message, Kuzu wrote: “If they make the wrong decision, we will send the refugees.” In a subsequent telephone interview with Bloomberg, he added: “If Turkey’s doors are opened, Europe would be miserable.”

Meanwhile, Erdogan has placed yet another obstacle in the way of EU-Turkey deal. He is now demanding that the EU immediately hand over three billion euros ($3.4 billion) promised under the deal so that Turkish authorities can spend it as they see fit.

The EU insists that the funds be transferred through the United Nations and other international aid agencies in accordance with strict rules on how the aid can be spent. That stance has prompted Erdogan to accuse the EU of “mocking the dignity” of the Turkish nation.

On May 10, Erdogan expressed anger at the glacial pace of the EU bureaucracy:

“This country [Turkey] is looking after three million refugees. What did they [the EU] say? We’ll give you €3 billion. Well, have they given us any of that money until now? No. They’re still stroking the ball around midfield. If you’re going to give it, just give it.

“These [EU] administrators come here, tour our [refugee] camps, then ask at the same time for more projects. Are you kidding us? What projects? We have 25 camps running. You’ve seen them. There is no such thing as a project. We’ve implemented them.”

In an interview with the Financial Times, Fuat Oktay, head of Turkey’s Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), the agency responsible for coordinating the country’s refugee response, accused European officials of being fixated on “bureaucracies, rules and procedures” and urged the European Commission to find a way around them.

The European Commission insists that it was made clear from the outset that most of the money must go to aid organizations: “Funding under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey supports refugees in the country. It is funding for refugees and not funding for Turkey.”

The migration crisis appears to be having political repercussions for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a leading proponent of the EU-Turkey deal. According to a new poll published by the German newsmagazine Cicero on May 10, two-thirds (64%) of Germans oppose a fourth term for Merkel, whose term ends in the fall of 2017.

In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister-party to Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU), blamed Merkel for enabling Erdogan’s blackmail: “I am not against talks with Turkey. But I think it is dangerous to be dependent upon Ankara.”

Sahra Wagenknecht of the Left Party accused Merkel of negotiating the EU-Turkey deal without involving her European partners: “The chancellor is responsible for Europe having become vulnerable to blackmail by the authoritarian Turkish regime.”

Cem Özdemir, leader of the Greens Party and the son of Turkish immigrants said: “The EU-Turkey deal has made Europe subject to Turkish blackmail. The chancellor bears significant responsibility for this state of affairs.”

Categories: Asylum seekers, Erdogan, Europe, European Union, Islam and colonialism, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Turkey
Tags: Asylum seekers, Erdogan, Europe, European Union, Islam and colonialism, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Turkey

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Glazov Gang-Michael Cutler Moment: Obama’s Pathway to the “Borderless World”

May 17, 2016

The Glazov Gang-Michael Cutler Moment: Obama’s Pathway to the “Borderless World” via YouTube, May 16, 2016

Categories: Globalism, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Kerry, U.S. borders
Tags: Globalism, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Kerry, U.S. borders

Comments: Be the first to comment

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims

May 17, 2016

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims, PJ Media, Robert Spencer, May 17, 2016

Petrayus

David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of CENTCOM, published a piece in the Washington Post last Friday entitled “Anti-Muslim Bigotry Aids Islamist Terrorists.”

Wrote Petraeus:

[I am] increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

Petraeus’s target isn’t just Donald Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is referring to all speech that some Muslims might find offensive, and this has sweeping and ominous implications.

Petraeus doesn’t just oppose what Trump now characterizes as “just a suggestion“ solely as a policy measure. Petraeus is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made; that just to speak them is damaging:

[T]he ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.

He feels simply speaking such thoughts may:

… compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.

How will these words do that? Well, you see:

[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the United States. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because he says it will enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against America. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.

His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Petraeus has done this before. When he headed up the international coalition in Afghanistan, he said this of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Qur’an:

[It] was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.

He warned that the Qur’an-burning would endanger American troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He issued a statement saying that he hoped:

… the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.

I opposed the Qur’an-burning, but not for the reasons Petraeus did.

I don’t like the burning of books. And I’d rather that the contents of the Qur’an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known.

However, Jones was free to do what he wanted to do. Petraeus would have done better to have told the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker.

He would have done better to tell them that their murderous rage over any burning of the Qur’an was an outrageous overreaction, and that bloodshed over such burnings was a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they thought Jones was committing.

The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy’s worldview and perspective and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts — not just the military one — to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.

Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would likely respond: “Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur’an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation.”

This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression. This also ignores the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an to justify violence and win recruits.

Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should have defended Jones’ freedom of expression, and used the burning as a teaching moment in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have said:

We are going to defend our vision of society no matter what you bring against us. The U.S. will always defend American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional freedoms.

The OIC’s effort to compel the West into censoring itself regarding criticism of Islam is going very well.

In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech. Instead, they opted to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.

The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it so that they won’t join the jihad.

In reality, this argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do, because they now have proof this tactic works. They are in fact already doing this. In the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, Petraeus is saying that the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want. Conform our speech to suit them.

If we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more. More aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving the West a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.

Categories: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus
Tags: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus

Comments: Be the first to comment

Former al-Qaida Terrorist Sought Asylum in Norway

May 17, 2016

Former al-Qaida Terrorist Sought Asylum in Norway, Investigative Project on Terrorism, May 17, 2016

Norwegian police arrested a former Syrian al-Qaida fighter who sought asylum in Norway, the UK’s Daily Express reports.

Police arrested the 26-year-old man Friday at an asylum center after officers received a search warrant. Anne Karoline, a lawyer representing the Norwegian police, confirmed the arrest but could not provide further details concerning the indictment. Her client admitted to being a former operative of Jabhat al-Nusra – al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria – when he sought asylum in 2015, Karoline said.

The suspect came to Norway with his underage brother and denies any wrongdoing. Norwegian police are trying to keep the former al-Qaida fighter in custody for a month.

Many critics of Europe’s refugee policy argue that radical jihadist organizations, including the Islamic State and al-Qaida, could attempt to infiltrate the West by planting operatives among waves of Middle Eastern refugees.

In a December 2015 white paper, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) explored gaps in the American Immigration system which could enable terrorists to enter the country as refuges, to apply for asylum once in the U.S., or to enter as passport holders from the 38 countries in the Visa Waiver Program.

Weaknesses in the U.S. system include the tendency to offer refugees and asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt in their accounts of their plight and background; the rapid speed with which lawful permanent resident status is granted to asylees and refugees; the problems that arise concerning refugees who cannot provide documentation of their birth dates; inconsistency in the vetting process; and inadequacies featured in various application forms.

Click here to read the IPT’s white paper and its recommendations.

Categories: Islamic immigration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamists in America
Tags: Islamic immigration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamists in America

Comments: Be the first to comment

Brexit Can Only Be Good for the United Kingdom

May 17, 2016

Brexit Can Only Be Good for the United Kingdom, American Thinker, Justin O. Smith, May 17, 2016

Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, warns that the U.K. will not be able to handle the upcoming surge of migrants if it stays in the EU. He observed during the April 1 Munk Debate that “Jeane-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has changed the definition of what a refugee is, to include people … from war torn areas … [and] from extreme poverty … [and] perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to Europe [as a result].”

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

The British people seem ready to leave the European Union through a historic June 23 referendum, because they are tired of the high-handed tyrannical regulations, clauses and counter-clauses, emanating from the EU Council on even the simplest aspects of their everyday lives. They have determined that leaving the EU will be the best step toward reclaiming their nation’s sovereignty and democratic rule in all matters of immigration and border control, their economy, free trade, and national security, and they are proudly waving the Union Jack, as they tell their would-be masters in Brussels to go to hell, declaring their independence.

In November 2015, U.K. prime Minister David Cameron attempted to renegotiate a treaty change with European Union Council president Donald Tusk concerning U.K. sovereignty, trade, immigration, and economic governance. Tusk rejected it all, with a minor exception regarding the handling of a few million pounds for children’s benefits. This dismal failure of P.M. Cameron only offered proof that the EU was closed to any substantial moves toward reform, which created a renewed and angry momentum for the Out of Europe, Vote Leave, and Brexit movements.

Corporatists, trans-nationalists, advocates of the U.N. 2030 Agenda, the BBC, and the Guardinista establishment are presenting dishonest and fear-based monologues regarding the uncertainty a U.K. exit from the EU might bring. They enjoy being able to circumvent individual nation’s policies by going through Brussels, and most of them have been made rich through their deals with the tyrannical, unelected, and entrenched bosses of the European Union.

Despite disingenuous conclusions from the trans-nationalist President Obama, does anyone really believe that a hundred years of shared security concerns and initiatives and trade agreements between the U.S. and the U.K. will be detrimentally affected by a “yes” vote to leave the EU?

What cogent thought process could people, like Lena Komileva (London economist), possibly be using when they ascribe the term “illiberal” to the British people’s desire for nationalist policies and reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty?

It will not take years for the U.K. to renegotiate trade deals with the U.S., as Obama suggests, but rather only months. And if small nations like South Korea and Chile can succeed in global markets, certainly Britain also will continue to succeed, especially since the EU already imports 45% of British exports.

Membership in the EU currently costs Britain approximately $30 billion annually. Although $55 billion in austerity cuts were made by the chancellor of the exchequer during the last Parliament, Britain’s contribution to the EU was roughly $132 billion. Every cut in public spending could be reversed, and Britain could still pay down its deficit faster if Britain were to leave the European Union.

In February, George Mason, senior vice president of Britain’s high-profile Tate and Lyle Sugars, made a mockery of claims by Britain Strong in Europe that Brexit would spell economic disaster for the U.K.: “we are absolutely certain that our business and people who work in it would have a more secure future outside the EU.”

Priti Patel, the U.K.’s employment minister, told the Daily Telegraph in March: “The Prime Minister has tried hard but the EU refused to give the British people what they want[.] … The only way to take back control over our economy[.] … [T]o create more jobs and growth is to Vote Leave.”

However, national security is the issue currently foremost in most Britons’ minds, but Eurocentrics, who believe that the U.K. will be safer in the EU through cooperation on crime and terrorism, have failed to see that the EU has never been capable of agreeing on effective foreign policy. Also not taken into account, the EU recently embraced the expanded definition of “refugee” put forth by the United Nations in its 2030 Agenda.

Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, warns that the U.K. will not be able to handle the upcoming surge of migrants if it stays in the EU. He observed during the April 1 Munk Debate that “Jeane-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has changed the definition of what a refugee is, to include people … from war torn areas … [and] from extreme poverty … [and] perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to Europe [as a result].”

There are also reports of Bosnia, with a population of 3.8 million, being infiltrated by Islamic State terrorists. They are buying property there, and they would be free to travel to the U.K. if Bosnia is granted EU membership.

Andrew Rosindell, a Conservative member of Parliament, stated in March: “Being in the EU means we don’t have control of our own systems, we don’t have control of our own borders. We are effectively tied to countries which I think are not as good at protecting their people as we have been.”

One can only imagine the palpable red-hot anger of the British people upon hearing Martin Shulz, European Parliament president, say that he was “sad and angry [over] the undertone of national resentment” and it was “not possible” to make the changes PM Cameron wanted. Shulz added that Britain “belongs” to the EU. Really? Just watch, wait, and see.

Downing Street has declared that “a vote to leave is a vote to leave.” A leave vote will facilitate the U.K.’s departure through Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and terms for Britain’s withdrawal will then be negotiated over the next two years.

Over forty years ago, Britain last debated her relationship with Europe, and even then, elected officials on both the right and left, such as two of the most iconic political figures of that era, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, campaigned against the U.K.’s membership in what was then the European Economic Community. They objected to Britain’s elected government meekly surrendering Britain’s national sovereignty to unelected foreign entities and the fundamental lack of democracy in the EU.

Lady Margaret Thatcher knew that it would be near impossible to effectively and efficiently impose one currency, one economy, and one national identity on many different countries (now 28) with such different languages, histories, customs, and cultures in general. Early on, the Iron Lady called the attempt to create a European super-state “the greatest folly of the modern era.”

Britons, excited and optimistic, are moving forward to reclaim a more free, prosperous, ally-connected, and nationally secure Britain, through their own elected officials and their own choices and wisdom, breaking free of the heavy bureaucratic chains of the European Union. As they shout “Hail Britannia,” they will vote to leave in June.

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Islamic invasion, Islamisation
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Islamic invasion, Islamisation

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamists Infiltrate the Swedish Government

May 16, 2016

Islamists Infiltrate the Swedish Government, Gatestone Institute, Ingrid Carlqvist, May 16, 2016

One Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Sweden: April 2016

♦ The library in Arvika surprised patrons by offering Arabic language courses. Many Swedes wondered if offering courses in Swedish to the Arabic-speaking immigrants would not be more productive. The library, however, does not offer any such service.

♦ The Immigration Service released a new report on April 8, entitled “Are You Married?”, which showed how its own case officers allow child marriages.

♦ Swedish authorities have approved hundreds of polygamous marriages among immigrants, law professor Göran Lind revealed on April 4.

♦ An asylum seeker was arrested April 23 for kicking his wife in the head, among other things. According to police, the man became angry with his wife because she was trying to learn Swedish.

April was the month when the Islamist scandals in the Green Party (Miljöpartiet) came one after the other. The Green Party sits in Sweden’s government, along with its coalition partner, the Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterna). They have made themselves known as a party favoring open borders, and with a passionate love for multiculturalism. These infatuations are precisely why the party has been a perfect candidate for Islamist infiltration. Within the Green Party, even to ask the question whether Muslims view Islam as a political force has been considered rude and “Islamophobic.”

On April 17: Housing Minister Mehmet Kaplan was forced to resign after it was reported that he not only socialized with Islamists and fascists, but also compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews.

April 20: A would-be member of the Green Party executive, Yasri Khan, refused to shake hands with a female TV reporter, Ann Tiberg, causing much hoopla and eventually forcing Khan to resign.

April 22: The scholar Lars Nicander of the Swedish Defense University warned that the Green Party may have been infiltrated by Islamists: “It is obvious they are trying to get in and ascend to positions of trust,” Nicander told the daily Aftonbladet.

Anders Wallner, Secretary of the Green Party, commented on Nicander’s remarks:

“What is being put forth by Lars Nicander is something we take very seriously. Extremism has no place in our party, something our spokespersons have been very clear about.”

April 23: Semanur Taskin, spokesperson for the Green Youth (the Green Party’s youth wing) in Stockholm, decided to drop out of politics. As a Swedish Muslim, she said, she felt “misunderstood and no longer secure in politics.” Taskin is also a member of an organization founded by Mehmet Kaplan — Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice (Svenska muslimer för fred och rättvisa). The organization is best known for working for Muslim rights in Sweden; participating in “Ships to Gaza,” and criticizing all things they perceive as “Islamophobic” or the government’s work against Islamism.

April 24: It was reported that the spokesperson for the Green Youth in Malmö, Salahaden Raoof,could be seen giving the so-called Rabia sign — a four-fingered salute in support of the Muslim Brotherhood — on live television, filmed during a political convention at Almedalen in 2015. He was, however, allowed to retain his post after stating that he “will not do it again.”

1601

Salahaden Raoof (left), spokesperson for the Green Youth in Malmö, Sweden, appeared on live TV giving the Rabia sign — a four-fingered salute in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was allowed to retain his post after stating that he “will not do it again.” Pictured at right: Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader and Egypt’s deposed president, popularized the Rabia sign.

April 27: Local Green Party politician Kamal al Rifai from Burlöv announced he was taking a time out from politics — after attracting much attention for inviting a world-famous Salafist, Salman al-Ouda, to speak at an event in Malmö for the benefit of the children of Syria. Al-Ouda is known, among other things, for being the mentor of Osama bin Laden. He later renounced bin Laden and now preaches a “peaceful transition to sharia.”

May 3: Mohamed Temsamani of the Green Party (Solna) was also identified as an Islamist. It emerged that he had been active in a political party connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, and had been seen giving the Rabia sign.

April 29: The author and social commentator Johan Lundberg wrote in the daily Göteborgs-Posten:

“The examples of associations and organizations with an Islamist agenda, who have received state subsidies and won the hearts of Green Party Ministers abound. How then, do you explain the Green Party dedication to conservative Islam? One explanation is the common view of identity politics, norm criticism and diversity in the sense of ethnicity, which has led to a troublesome blindness to extremism.”

Other Islamic and Multicultural News in Sweden in April

April 1: An Afghan man claiming to be a child was placed in an institution for youths, where he raped a 15-year-old girl. The man came to Sweden at the end of last year, and applied for asylum on December 14. The next day, he was arrested for raping a girl at the home for youths with psychiatric problems, where he had been placed. The girl had several times reported that the man (who later turned out to be at least 19 years old) was uncomfortably intimate towards her. Even so, they were left alone one night in front of the television. When the staff came back, they saw the Afghan raping the crying girl. He has now been sentenced to forensic psychiatric care and deportation.

April 4: A large police search was called to look for an Iraqi citizen, Ramin Sherzaj, 23, who was abducted against his will in central Gävle. He was pulled into a car, which, with “screeching tires,” disappeared from the site. Sometime later, five Iraqis who came to Sweden early this century were arrested: one woman and four men. Two weeks later, Sherzaj’s dead body was found. In all, seven people have now been taken into custody in connection with the murder.

April 4: Polygamy is against the Swedish constitution’s demands for equality and totally foreign to the Swedish legal system. Still, Swedish authorities have approved hundreds of polygamous marriages, law professor Göran Lind revealed. Men bringing several wives to Sweden have had their marriages approved. Göran Lind says that Swedish courts need to stop approving these marriages:

“This can create big problems if, say, an Iraqi man with three wives dies. Do all three have marital rights to the estate? Are they to share the half a monogamous widow gets or is the estate to be shared some other way? And are the children shared, or children from previous marriages?”

April 5: A Somali known as “Muhamed” was sentenced to community service for 180 hours, after brutally raping a 12-year-old girl. “Black dick is expensive,” he commented during the rape. Now the girl is being stalked, threatened and physically abused by Muhamed’s friends and family. The local daily Sundsvalls Tidning interviewed the girl, who told the paper about how she ran into the perpetrator’s family at a bus stop, and was beaten by one of his brothers:

“There came the other one, who I have a restraining order against, and I thought he was going to help me get up, but he punched me on the mouth with his fist. Then his mother came and I thought they would quit, but she kicked me, too.”

April 6: The Swedish National Audit Office, in its yearly review, criticized the Immigration Service on several counts. Members of the Audit Office wrote in their report that there was a risk of corruption. The auditors complained about a lack of policy documents and clear routines, and that the case officers can pick and choose which errands they want to process — opening up opportunities for corruption.

April 7: A 20-year-old Muslim medical student, Aydin Sevigin, was prosecuted for planning to blow himself up in Sweden in a terrorist attack. According to the prosecutor, Sevigin could have caused serious damage. When the trial started on April 15, Sevigin seemed unperturbed when the prosecutor read a passage about how one becomes a jihadi one-man army. He admitted to the police that he wants to die a martyr. Among the evidence presented against him are pictures in which Sevigin can be seen buying bomb-making ingredients at an Ikea store.

April 8: The Immigration Service released a new report, entitled “Are You Married?”, which showed how its own case officers allow child marriages. The report highlighted several cases where the officers did not ask any questions whatsoever, despite dealing with married 16- to 17-year-old girls.

The Immigration Service wrote:

“The Immigration Service has a duty to investigate, and questions about the marriage should be asked, regardless of whether a married child points to this circumstance as a factor in his or her need for protection or not.”

The report also noted that there is no comprehensive view or analysis of what is in the best interest of the child. Rules are not followed, and reports to Social Services and the police are not being filed to the extent that they should be.

April 10: For many years, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet), BRÅ, has claimed that the lethal violence in Sweden is on the decline. However, BRÅ failed to mention that this is in comparison to the record-breaking years, 1989-1991. If one instead were to compare the present with the 1950s, when Sweden was still a homogenous country, the number of murders and manslaughter cases has doubled. Recently, BRÅ was forced to confess that lethal violence did in fact increase in 2015, when 112 people were killed: 25 more than the year before. 2016 appears on track to top that — during the first three months of the year, 40 murders and 57 attempted murders were committed in Sweden, according to statistics compiled by journalist Elisabeth Höglund.

April 11: The New Welfare (Den Nya Välfärden), a think tank, presented an opinion poll that showed 70% of Swedes now think immigration is too high. In 2014, only 45% felt this way; in 2015, 58%. The poll also showed that the difference in opinion between people with higher education and blue-collar workers continued to shrink. The largest increase in critics of immigration is found among academics.

April 11: The library in Arvika surprised patrons by offering Arabic language courses. Many Swedes wondered if offering courses in Swedish to the Arab-speaking immigrants would not be more productive. The library, however, does not offer any such service. Library representatives wrote in a press release:

“As part of our work to create meeting points, bolster integration and increase knowledge of other cultures, peoples and languages, the Arvika Library and the Education Association NBV are now giving a course in Arabic at Arvika Library.”

April 12: A 33-year-old Arab man and a 34-year-old Turkish woman were prosecuted for a brutal murder in Malmö in the summer of 2015. The victim, a middle-aged Swedish man, had let the woman stay with him at his apartment in central Malmö. The woman was the one who called the police after the murder. However, the prosecutor believes that the murder actually took place 24 hours earlier, and that by the time the police arrived, the crime scene had been “scrubbed.” Both suspects have entered a plea of not guilty, and blame each other for the murder. Their motive remains unclear.

April 14: Gambian citizen Baboucar Mboge, 21, was sentenced to one year in prison for rape, robbery and minor drug-related offenses. He was also sentenced to pay 125,000 kronor (about $14,000) in damages to the woman he raped and mugged. The rape took place four years ago, but it was not until Mboge became a suspect in a robbery against a convenience store in Stockholm that his DNA could be tied to the rape. When questioned by the police, the Gambian claimed that the girl had consensual sex with him on a lawn, and he bragged about “f**king for over ten minutes.” The prosecutor did not ask for deportation.

April 14: Many Muslims in Sweden have been granted damages by the Discrimination Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen), DO, after their refusal to shake hands has led to them not getting a job for which they have applied. But the woman who refused to shake a doctor’s hand, leading to her not getting the physical examination she wanted, did not get any money. The Hässleholm Municipal Court previously convicted the doctor and the company he worked for, and sentenced them to pay the woman 75,000 kronor (about $8,700) in damages, but the verdict was reversed in the Court of Appeals, which said that the DO could not prove that the missed physical examination was due to the woman not shaking the doctor’s hand.

April 14: A 27-year-old scientist at Uppsala University was arrested, suspected of selling poison, munitions and narcotics online. The man, nicknamed “Chemical Ali,” is a German citizen of Turkish descent. He was arrested on suspicion of drug-related crimes, preparing to spread poison (aggravated offense) and breaking the munitions law. He was also suspected of attempted aggravated extortion after sending someone a poisonous substance “while trying to blackmail them.”

April 14: A Syrian asylum seeker was sentenced to two years in prison and deportation for having assaulted a woman in January, at an asylum house in Leksand. The woman had locked herself into a bathroom, but the 34-year old man managed to pick the lock, pull her out, rip off her clothes and rape her. During the rape, the man pulled his victim’s hair and beat her. She retaliated by biting his finger and shoulder. It was only when the man saw his wife outside the window that he stopped.

April 16: When local politicians of the Stockholm suburbs of Spånga-Tensta met the would-be neighbors of a planned asylum house for 600 people, the mood was close to that of a lynch mob. The citizens were concerned about the asylum house, planned right next to a school: “We will fight to our last drop of blood to make sure this plan is not carried out,” said one man, to uproarious applause.

Despite agitated feelings, the politicians had no answers, making the people even more upset. Several shouted: “Answer! Answer our questions! Why are you doing this? Where is your analysis? Are we to risk our children’s health?”

April 17: A soccer tournament for “unaccompanied refugee children” in Jämtland ended in a mass brawl, involving 40 people fighting with iron bars and wooden sticks. At least one person had to be taken to hospital. The police investigation turned up at least seven suspects in the case. “It is plaintiffs and suspects all jumbled together,” police officer Cecilia Modin told local paper, Länstidningen. A couple of days later, the municipality decided not to host any more soccer tournaments for “unaccompanied.”

April 23: An immigrant from the Middle East, Ali Al-Ali, at first evaded being sentenced for kidnapping and robbing a taxi driver as he was, according to public record, only 14 years old at the time the crimes were committed. His two accomplices, who both received six months in juvenile detention, but avoided deportation, stated to the court that Ali Al-Ali is older than 18, and frequently brags about fooling the Swedish authorities. Two days after the sentence, Ali Al-Ali was arrested at a shopping mall in Malmö. At the time, he was accompanied by two other youths, carrying firearms, knives and a balaclava. The other two youths escaped the scene, but Ali Al-Ali, suspected of preparing an armed robbery, is now in police custody.

April 23: The political news editor of the local newspaper, Eskilstuna-Kuriren, Alex Voronov, posted a picture of himself giving the Rabia-sign — four fingers in the air as a salute to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — on Twitter. “I have met several MB-politicians who are now behind bars after mock trials,” Voronov tweeted, “and this is of course something that concerns me.”

The paper refused to comment on its editor’s message.

April 23: An asylum seeker from Hagfors was arrested, suspected of, among other things, having kicked his wife in the head. According to the police, the man became angry with his wife because she was trying to learn Swedish. The couple needed interpreter assistance in Dari, a language spoken in Afghanistan.

April 28: After brusquely rebutting a proposal by the Sweden Democrats (SD) to eliminate the two-week long suspension of Sweden’s border controls, the government suddenly announced that the border controls would not be suspended after all. The decision was welcomed by the SD, whose members are critical of immigration, and who assert that border-controls issue has been handled appallingly.

Kent Ekeroth, an SD representative and member of the parliament’s Justice Committee, stated:

“It is pretty comical how the other parties time and again vote no to our motion to remove the waiting period in connection with the identity checks, but it is good that they are now following our lead point by point and copying our suggestions.”

April 27: A 34-year-old Somali, who raped a woman in Gothenburg last year, was sentenced to five and a half years in prison. The man pulled a dark hood over the woman’s head, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her. Then he ripped off her clothes and raped her. Afterwards, he stole her cell phone and said, “You could get 10,000 kronor if you come home with me and I could f**k you for a whole day.” Despite the court’s assertion that his crimes are of “a most serious nature,” the man will not be deported.

April 30: The mosque of Imam Abo Raad, identified as the foremost “militant Islamist leader in Sweden,” was subjected to a firebomb attack. The Islamist mosque, located in Gävle, has been highlighted in the local paper, Gefle Dagblad, in a series of articles beginning in the fall of 2015. On March 30, it also emerged that Gefle Dagblad’s editor-in-chief, Anna Gullberg, had received death threats from a close relative of Abo Raad. “This is a direct threat against the freedom of the press,” Gullberg said. “The threats are obviously connected to the articles Gefle Dagblad has published.”

Categories: Islam and girls, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islam and women, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Sweden
Tags: Islam and girls, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islam and women, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Sweden

Comments: 1 Comment

Will America Follow Britain further Into, or away from, the Abyss?

May 14, 2016

Will America Follow Britain further Into, or away from, the Abyss? Dan Miller’s Blog, May 14, 2016

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

The Muslim invasion is changing European and British demographics to the degree that some countries will soon have Muslim majorities. Will America follow Europe? What about our Publican and Demorat elites? Will we reject them and the unelected bureaucrats they have spawned and empowered?

America needs to vote for her own version of Brexit this November.

British and European Demographics

Paul Weston is the vile “Islamophobe” who dared to read — aloud and in public — a passage from a book written by another vile “Islamophobe,” Winston Churchill, a couple of years ago. For that, he (Weston, not Winston) was arrested.

So what if Weston spoke accurately? He offended Muslims and that can’t be tolerated. Besides, Britain is terribly “racist” even though Islam is not a race.

Meanwhile, London’s East End is losing its native population and the place looks “less like a British city, more like Baghdad.”

The European Union and Britain

Currently, Mr. Weston of the Liberty GB Party is campaigning for Britain to leave the Europen Union, a force for unrequited love, charity and destruction. So is Nigel Farge of UKIP.

Here’s a long video about the EU and why Britain should leave it. It’s over an hour long but well worth watching. It’s principally about economics, the destructive power the EU has given unaccountable bureaucrats and the stifling of democracy.

As you watch and listen, please consider the similarities and differences between the EU and governance of, by and for the Publican and Demorat Establishment in America. Both have empowered and continue to expand unelected bureaucracies.

I was disappointed that the video does not deal with the immigration problem which will continue to plague Britain if she remains in the EU. Perhaps the topic was seen as likely to displease Britain’s already substantial Muslim population and prompt them to vote to remain in the EU. Remember, London just elected its first Muslim mayor.

Here’s another “Islamophobic” EUophobe:

Democracy and self-governance are seen by far too many as absurdly old fashioned. In Obama’s America, where would we be if governance were taken away from our betters in the Publican and Demorat Establishment and returned to the vulgarian little people? Do we need great Establishment intellects to think for us so that we don’t have to do it ourselves? The vulgarian dummies living in EU member states haven’t had to think for years. Now, with the upcoming referendum, those in Britain l have a chance to do so. We will have a chance this November.

Obama has told the citizens of once-great Britain that membership in the EU is economically and otherwise good for them — perhaps even as good as His presidency has been for citizens of His America. Many disagree with “the smartest person in any room;” those in Obama’s America who do may even elect Vulgarian-in-Chief Donald Trump as President shortly after citizens of Britain who cherish self-governance may vote to exit the EU.

Conclusions

America does not yet have the same Muslim demographic problems as Europe or Britain. Unless we halt or at least reduce Islamic immigration and cease to subsidize it we will eventually. One way to minimize the problem is to get rid of the politically correct “Islamophobia” nonsense and speak of Islam as it is rather than as though it were a benign unicorn.

The elites of the Publican and Demorat establishment are a big part if the problem. Just as Britain seems to be moving toward leaving the EU, we need to diminish the power of our own elected elites by electing “vulgarians” to replace them. We also need to reduce the very substantial power of the masses of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats they have empowered. There is no need to replace them.

Categories: 2016 elections, BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, European Union, Freedom of Expression, Illegal immigration, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, London, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farge, Obama's America, Paul Weston, Political correctness, Political establishments
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, European Union, freedom of expression, Illegal immigration, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, London, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farge, Obama's America, Paul Weston, Political correctness, Political establishments

Comments: Be the first to comment

Britain’s Muddled Priorities?

May 14, 2016

Britain’s Muddled Priorities? Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, May 14, 2016

♦ On the one hand, the overwhelming cause of our current security problems is Islamist terror. It is the number one cause of concern to our police, intelligence services and everybody else with the nation’s security at heart. The public expects to be protected from such terror and expects that protection to come from that security establishment.

♦ Yet all the time, a vocal lobby of Muslim and non-Muslim figures tries to pretend that the threat is not what it is, or that an attempt to depict any and all efforts to protect the country — even one phrase said by one actor in one simulated attack scenario – is some terrible crime of bigotry.

♦ An actor saying “Allahu Akbar” in a simulated terror attack may be offensive to somebody’s religion. But if so, what is more offensive to their religion: one actor saying “Allahu Akbar” as part of a simulation, or countless Muslims around the world shouting the same phrase before real attacks in real time?

Sometimes you can see a whole society’s self-delusion in under a minute. Consider a single minute that occurred in Britain this week.

On Monday night, Greater Manchester Police staged a pre-prepared mock terrorist attack in a Manchester shopping centre in order to test emergency responses capabilities, readiness and response times. At one stage, an actor playing a suicide bomber burst through a doorway in a crowded part of the shopping centre and detonated a fake device.

It turned out that the actor pretending to be a suicide bomber had shouted the words “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is Greatest”) before the simulated attack. This may have helped make the simulation more realistic, but it had an immediate backlash. Nobody complained about the simulated attacks. What disturbed some people was the simulation of the signature Islamist sign-off.

1596

A video still from the mock terrorist attack staged on May 9, 2016 by the police in Manchester, England.

Within hours, the simulated moral outrage machine, social media, began deploring the outrageousness of the exercise. Soon, community spokesmen were on the airwaves, deploring the use of the crucial phrase. Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said,

“[O]n reflection, we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused.”

Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, tried to explain that,

“it is frustrating the operation has been marred by the ill-judged, unnecessary and unacceptable decision by organisers to have those playing the parts of terrorists to shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ before setting off their fake bombs. It didn’t add anything to the event, but has the potential to undermine the great community relations we have in Greater Manchester.”

By now, most of the national papers and the 24-hour news programs were all over the story. That is where the revealing minute happened. On Sky News, interviewer Kay Burley was interviewing one Jahangir Mohammed, who was introduced as a “community worker.” Mr. Mohammed spent some time commenting:

“Like everything, there’s a securitised approach to these things and that’s necessary in training like this. But I think sometimes there’s also a need for them to have a bit of religious and cultural context when they’re doing training like this in a wider setting about the possible implications and the effects on wider society and communities within that society.”

Ms. Burley thanked Mr. Mohammed for his illuminating contribution and went onto the next news item. In other main stories, she said,

“One man has died, three others injured after a knife attack at a train station near Munich. The attacker — a 27-year-old German — shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ according to witnesses, before stabbing people at the station in Grafing. He was overpowered at the scene and is now in custody.”

The combination of these two news stories took about one minute.

Whether or not the Grafing attacker turns out to be a non-Muslim with psychiatric issues, as the press is currently suggesting, or an Islamist with or without such issues, this single minute of broadcast footage says so much about the problem that societies such as Britain’s are now in.

On the one hand, the overwhelming cause of our current security problems is Islamist terror. It is the number one cause of concern to our police, intelligence services and everybody else with the nation’s security at heart. The public expects to be protected from such terror and expects that protection to come from that security establishment. Yet all the time, a vocal lobby of Muslim and non-Muslim figures tries to pretend that the threat is not what it is, or that an attempt to depict any and all efforts to protect the country — even one phrase said by one actor in one simulated attack scenario — is some terrible crime of bigotry.

Of course, there would have been no social media backlash and no swift apology from the Greater Manchester Police if the terrorist simulation had involved a “far-right” terrorist. But there is always a backlash if the scenario reflects the real security threat that all our societies are facing. This is yet another occasion in which the general public’s view of people’s priorities is legitimately raised. Why would any Muslim or anyone else genuinely opposed to terror object to the realistic simulation of such an event? One can see, of course, that it may be offensive to somebody’s religion. But if so, what is more offensive to their religion: one actor saying “Allahu Akbar” as part of one simulation, or countless Muslims around the world shouting the same phrase before real attacks in real time?

If I were a Muslim, I would spend every minute of my waking life trying to persuade my co-religionists not to kill people right after shouting about my Allah. I do not think I would bother for a second if a police force, trying to keep people safe, chose realistically to simulate the behaviour of my co-religionists. It is a matter of priorities, and across Britain and many other countries in the world today, our priorities are now seriously awry.

Categories: Britain, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: Britain, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia

Comments: 1 Comment

Archives