Moral equivalence | WarSclerotic | Page 3

Archive for the ‘Moral equivalence’ category

Palestinian terrorism is not random

October 23, 2015

Palestinian terrorism is not random, Israel Hayom, Yoram Ettinger, October 23, 2015

Unlike national liberation movements, Palestinian terrorism has deliberately, institutionally, and systematically targeted Arab and Israeli noncombatants, sometimes hitting combatants.

Palestinian terrorism has haunted Arab societies in Jordan (especially during the 1968-1970 era of PLO terrorism), Lebanon (particularly during the 1971-1982 civil wars), Kuwait (during the 1990 invasion by Saddam Hussein), Iraq (until 2002, as an arm of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless domestic oppression), Syria (until 2012, bolstering Bashar Assad’s regime) and currently in Egypt (collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization). Pro-U.S. Arab regimes consider Palestinian terrorism a clear and present danger, never fighting on behalf of Palestinians. Sometimes these regimes launch severe military blows (1970 Black September in Jordan) and expulsions (300,000 expelled from Kuwait), showering them with rhetoric, but not resources.

Since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1993, Palestinian terrorism has afflicted the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, denying the Palestinians civil liberties and instituting a corrupt, oppressive reign of horror. It prompted most Christians to flee from Ramallah (home of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ headquarters), Bethlehem and Beit Jallah. In addition, Muslim emigration from the Palestinian Authority has increased since 2000. While Egypt prevents emigration from Gaza through Sinai, Gaza’s Arabs have emigrated, in increasing numbers, via the Mediterranean. Moreover, Palestinians flow across Jerusalem’s municipal lines, escaping Abbas’ tyranny to receive Israeli residency, social benefits and human rights.

Palestinian terrorists have targeted pro-U.S. Arab regimes and “the arrogant, infidel, Great Satan,” the U.S., joining the ayatollahs in Iran (since the toppling of the shah in 1979), Taliban, al-Qaida, Islamic State and other Islamic terror organizations. Osama bin Laden’s role model and spiritual mentor, Abdullah Azam, was from a village in Samaria.

Palestinian terrorism is a modern-day branch of Islamic terrorism, which has plagued the Middle East — and beyond — since the appearance of Islam in the seventh century. The current intensification of Islamic terrorism throughout the Middle East provides a tailwind to Palestinian terrorism.

Palestinian terrorism has inspired terror cells in Europe, Africa, Asia and the American continent, including sleeper cells in the U.S.

Anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism has been a Middle East fixture since at least the 1920s, well before the 1948 establishment of Israel and the 1967 return of Jewish communities to Judea and Samaria. It’s well-documented collaboration with Nazi Germany sought to prevent the existence — not reduce the size — of the Jewish state. The political guideline of contemporary Palestinian terrorism, the Palestinian Covenant, was published in 1964, three years before the reunification of Jerusalem.

Palestinian terrorism is nurtured by 23 years of Palestinian hate education in kindergartens, schools, mosques and media — the most effective means of producing terrorists. It was established by Abbas (then Yasser Arafat’s chief deputy) in 1993, highlighting the fundamentals of Islam that serve to intensify Palestinian terrorism: the supremacy of Islam over all other religions; the permanent state of war between the abode of Islam and the abode of the “infidel”; the inadmissibility of “infidel” sovereignty over Waqf lands, which are divinely ordained to Islam; the sublime honor of sacrificing one’s life on behalf of Islam’s war against the “infidel”; and the provisional nature of agreements concluded with “infidels.”

Palestinian terrorism has been encouraged by Abbas’ systematic policy of naming streets, squares, monuments and sport tournaments in honor of terrorists, and extending generous financial assistance to their families.

Palestinian terrorism, an endemic feature in the Middle East, represents writing on the wall, warning us all of the destabilizing, anti-Western, terroristic nature of the proposed Palestinian state. An Israeli withdrawal from the mountain ridge of the Golan Heights would provide a platform for Islamic terrorists to traumatize northern Israel. But an Israeli withdrawal from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria would provide Muslim terrorists a platform to topple the Hashemite regime in Jordan and target Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion Airport and 80% of Israel’s population and infrastructure.

Palestinian terrorism is fueled by the inherently immoral “moral equivalence” between Israeli counterterrorism and Palestinian terrorism, which grossly misrepresents Middle East reality. It is fueled by foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, which funds hate education. It is rewarded by calls to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, while Abbas promotes hate education. It is emboldened by Western pressure for further Israeli concessions and Western denial of Israel’s moral high ground in the physical high ground of Judea and Samaria.

In order to defeat Palestinian terrorism, it is necessary to defy political correctness and shift gears, instead of chasing individual terroristic mosquitoes, the terroristic swamp needs to be drained. A large-scale, disproportionate, pre-emptive military operation needs to be launched throughout Judea and Samaria and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Any (U.S. and Israeli) direct or indirect contact with and assistance to the Palestinian Authority needs to be conditioned upon an end to hate education. Families and communities of terrorists need to be severely punished for failing to exercise communal responsibility.

To frustrate Palestinian terrorism, which aims to set Israel on a path of retreat, Israel should proclaim a constructive response, expanding Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. While it would trigger short-term international pressure, it would yield long-term strategic respect, as documented by the legacy of Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, who defied much more severe international pressure with slimmer military and commercial resources at their disposal.

Categories: Abbas, Arab nations, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Foreign policy, Moral equivalence, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Israel, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians and Jews
Tags: Abbas, Arab nations, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Foreign Policy, Moral equivalence, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Israel, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians and Jews

Comments: Be the first to comment

Swedes’ Homes May Be Confiscated to Accommodate Asylum Seekers

September 25, 2015

Swedes’ Homes May Be Confiscated to Accommodate Asylum Seekers, Gatestone Institute, Ingrid Carlqvist, September 25, 2015

(Possible confiscation of homes is only a minor part of the story. The rest is worse. — DM)

Translation of the original text: Svenskarnas bostäder kan konfiskeras till förmån för asylsökande.

In 1992, the “Threat and Risk Assessment Commission” established that the government should have the option to seize property, especially summer homes, from the Swedish people in a time of crisis.
Despite Sayadi’s commission of three rapes and his sexual molestation of young girls, as well as his systematic criminal activity, he received only a four-year prison sentence, and will not have to face deportation.
Husein wants a Swedish passport so he can go back to Somalia, the country he claims to have escaped from — to “visit his mom and establish business contacts.”
“The situation affects everyone who lives and stays in our little county. The climate has grown tougher, many people feel scared and unsafe and with that comes the risk of increased xenophobia, antagonism and exclusion.” — From a letter to the government from Örkelljunga County leaders. The county swiftly received criticism from the mainstream media, and the Immigration Service let it be known that they have no intention of helping Örkelljunga.

August 3: Ahmad El-Moghrabi, 21, who has no driver’s license, was indicted for driving like a madman through the city of Malmö in February, and nearly killing a mother and baby. On February 11, he drove a luxury Mercedes at high speed, with some other Arab men as passengers, one of whom is a well-known extremist, when the police tried to pull the car over. Instead of stopping, El-Moghrabi sped away at about 150 km/h on the busy inner city street of Amiralsgatan, where the speed limit is 40 km/h.

The police chase ended when El-Moghrabi hit some parked cars. Three people were injured, and the mother and baby sustained life-threatening injuries after being crushed between the cars.

El-Moghrabi fled the scene, but was apprehended later. He has been charged with gross negligence, grievous bodily harm, fleeing the scene of an accident, and driving without a license. His own explanation to the rampage was that he did not want to be caught by the police, as his license had been revoked.

August 3: It was reported that 2000 third-world immigrants are seeking asylum in Sweden — each week. The largest groups were Syrians, then Afghans, stateless people, Eritreans and Somalis. The Immigration Service now reports that there are close to 50,000 asylum seekers living in various housing and rental facilities, and more are on their way to a country that already suffers from a major housing shortage.

The question is: Where will they live? More and more people are now worrying that the government will confiscate the homes of Swedes and give them to asylum seekers. In 1992, the “Threat and Risk Assessment Commission” (Hot- och riskutredningen) established that the government should have the option to seize property, especially summer homes, from the Swedish people in a time of crisis. In early September, editorial columnist Anna Dahlberg ofExpressen, one of Sweden’s largest dailies, urged Swedes to “make way” and “hand over the keys to their apartments to those in greater need.”

August 3: Another shooting took place in the violence-stricken city of Malmö. No one was hurt this time, but the police found empty shell casings on Rasmusgatan Street in the Seved area, one of Malmö’s “no go-zones,” where a majority of the inhabitants are of foreign descent. The area is known for its open drug trade, and over the last few years, a large number of shootings and grenade attacks have occurred there. (On June 12, a hand grenade was thrown, and four people were wounded.) In an attempt to bring down the crime rate, local authorities gave the police permission on August 12 to place four cameras in the area to film events around the clock.

August 5: The Stockholm police department caused an uproar with a shocking story about everyday life in immigrant-heavy suburbs such as Tensta-Rinkeby, Hjulsta, Kista and Husby. Youth gangs regularly attack police by using lasers to blind them, and throwing rocks and firebombs. Criminal gangs resolve conflicts by shooting at each other in public places, risking the lives of innocent people who may be in their way. Police officer Nikolina Bucht wrote in a columnin the daily Svenska Dagbladet that it is time to “take back the area from the criminals and protect all the respectable people who have their neighborhoods destroyed, their cars set on fire and feel unsafe.” She wrote:

“Last week my colleagues got a call about a sudden cardiac arrest in Rinkeby. … When they arrive at the scene, they are met by about ten young people who are provoked by their mere presence, turn aggressive and mask their faces. The police are forced to focus on the rock throwing instead of going up to the apartment and starting CPR. He had to wait for several minutes extra before he got help, time that could have saved his life. This was not an isolated event.”

August 7: A Somali refugee, Mohamed Husein, complained he has not yet received a Swedish citizenship. Somalis must wait three years longer than others for citizenship, as they cannot prove their identity. Husein wants a Swedish passport so he can go back to the country he claims to have escaped from — to “visit his mom and establish business contacts.”

August 10: It was reported that a 15-year-old pregnant girl, who six weeks prior traveled with her boyfriend to Syria, had been captured by the Islamic State (ISIS). How the girl managed to travel without a passport or identification papers remains a mystery. Swedish media made no effort to sort out why she would object to living with ISIS. Her boyfriend is reported to have joined an al-Qaeda-affiliated group.

August 11: The law journal Dagens Juridik reported that a 19-year-old girl was taken into custody, in accordance with the LVU law (“Care of Young Persons Special Provisions Act”), after her family threatened to subject her to honor violence. Social service workers on the island of Gotland applied for “administered care” after the girl, in spite of threats, had escaped from the shelter where she was living and moved back with her family. The court stated that the investigation showed that the girl’s desire to return is rooted in her upbringing, which has taught her that the honor of the family is more important than her individual rights. She may also feel guilt, because she thinks she is dishonoring the family by not being with them. According to the court, the girl’s behavior should be considered socially disruptive under the definition of the LVU law, and therefore, she needs to be protected.

August 14: Two men, 21 and 26 years of age, were remanded, suspected of two of the many recent hand grenade attacks in Malmö. At the same time, another 26-year-old was remanded for attempted murder and possession of an illegal weapon, both of which occurred in Rasmusgatan, in Malmö’s “no-go” Seved neighborhood.

Early that morning, police also discovered two hand grenades in Adelgatan, in central Malmö. One had exploded, and the other one failed to work. A large area was barricaded and several buildings had to be evacuated. The police suspected the incident could be linked to a car bomb that had detonated in Malmö two days earlier. Malmö has experienced the most bomb attacks of all Scandinavian cities: this year alone, 20 bombings have taken place.

August 12: A 43-year-old Iranian citizen, Ramin Sayadi, was sentenced to four years in prison for three rapes and two counts of sexual molestation of young girls. Sayadi also sold the girls large quantities of prescription narcotics such as Tramadol, Ritalin and Subutex. The police investigation showed that he had close to 1,000 customers. When the girls became addicted to the drugs, he took advantage of them sexually. The police believe there are many more victims who have not come forward. Detective inspector Jan-Åke Stendahl told daily Göteborgs-Postenthat the man had over 200 contacts listed in his mobile phone, and a majority of the numbers belonged to young girls. Sayadi was caught in May of last year, walking around Gothenburg’s central station trawling for customers.

Despite his systematic criminal activity, he received only a four-year prison sentence, and will not have to face deportation.

August 14: A so-called unaccompanied refugee child was prosecuted on rape charges. The act took place on the night of January 10, in a youth home in Västerbotten in northern Sweden. The suspect is a native of Afghanistan and claims to be 17 years old. The police believe he raped the woman when she was in a drunken stupor, and therefore in what the law calls a “particularly vulnerable situation.”

August 17: The police issued an international arrest warrant for a Congolese citizen, Loran Guy Mogi, 23, wanted for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Therese Eriksson, 23, of Vårgårda. Eriksson had been found dead four days earlier in Mogi’s apartment, but he had fled the scene. She was killed by blows to the head and body. After a week on the run, Loran Guy Mogi was apprehended at a refugee facility in the German city of Hannover. He has since been remanded pending trial. According to the prosecutor, Robert Beckard, Mogi has pled not guilty to the murder charge, but admits that he beat Eriksson and may thus have caused her death.

August 18: The media website Avpixlat wrote that an Algerian man, who has not lived in Sweden for six years, is entitled to financial aid to cover doctor’s visits and the cost of his medicine. The man came to Sweden in the 1990s, but never worked or paid taxes there. Six years ago, he returned to Algeria, but in April of this year, he suddenly appeared in Sweden again to seek emergency health care. He underwent two surgeries at taxpayer expense, and considered himself entitled to financial aid for the cost of his medicine and several doctor’s visits. The municipality of Gothenburg had ruled against the request, but an administrative court now ruled that since the man has no income or assets, he is entitled to aid.

August 18: Five representatives of the Church of Sweden wrote, in an op-ed in the Swedish dailyDagens Nyheter, that the church should also be open to Muslims. The article astonished and angered Christians. Stefan Gustavsson, secretary general of the Swedish Evangelical Alliance,pointed out that Islam, Judaism and Christianity promote three radically different versions of what happened to Jesus:

Islam: Jesus did not die.
Judaism: Jesus died but was not resurrected.
Christianity: Jesus died and was resurrected.

These different versions cannot all be true, Gustavsson points out, and urges the Church of Sweden to awake from their Sleeping Beauty-slumber and start taking big questions seriously:

“The religion relativism that is now widespread throughout the Church of Sweden is not just an intellectual dead end, it is an insult to the Christians of Iraq and Syria who face forced conversion and who are willing to give their lives for their faith in Jesus Christ.”

But the Church of Sweden persists, and on August 30, it invited imam Mohammad Muslim Eneborg to take part in high mass. Before he converted, the imam was named Åke Daniel Eneborg and he was a left-wing activist.

August 24: Former member of parliament Thoralf Alfsson (Sweden Democrats) wrote on his blog that the Immigration Service had hired no fewer than 1,200 people during the last year. Earlier, in August 2014, the Immigration Service had about 5,000 employees; in August 2015 that figure was 6,200. This means that the wage costs have increased by 50 million kronor (about $5.9 million) a month. In all, the Immigration Service’s staff now cost Swedish taxpayers 250 million kronor ($29.6 million USD) a month, or 3 billion kroner ($360 million) a year.

Aside from skyrocketing costs, Alfsson questions why so many people of foreign descent find employment with the Immigration Service. He writes: “I can’t but wonder what kind of screening process the Immigration Service have in regard to the people they hire. Could there be employees with residency status in Sweden who use a fake identity? Are there ISIS-sympathizers among the employees?” And there are.

Social commentator and author Merit Wager, who frequently publishes anonymous posts from Immigration Service employees, wrote in an August 21 blog post that authorities now no longer take rejected asylum seekers into custody, due to attacks from left-wing extremists. That is why the IKEA-murderer, who had received a deportation order, was not in custody, a failure that led to the death of two innocent people in the heart of the Swedish idyll. One Immigration Service employee said:

“Years ago, the Immigration Service was often heavily criticized by various left-wing groups who wanted to ‘protect’ the asylum seekers who had been found lacking in reasons for protection and targeted for deportation. Sometimes there were big demonstrations and now and again Immigration Service buildings were vandalized. Today these actions have ceased almost completely. The reason is very simple – the Immigration Service has hired the activists. They are now officials at the authority! I’ve met several people who are quite open about their backgrounds in these activist groups. The reason the Immigration Service hires them is that they state on their CVs exactly what the government wants to hear – that they have a ‘burning engagement in human rights issues.'”

August 24: A police van was attacked with a hand grenade in the Stockholm suburb of Tumba. Four policemen were in the vehicle at the time. If it had not been for the fact that the vehicle was armored, the incident could have ended in a bloodbath. The attack began when several people threw rocks at police officers, and a fire was set at the local police station. Moments later, the hand grenade was thrown and landed about five feet from the police van. No one was injured, but the vehicle sustained 105 holes from shrapnel. Despite intense police efforts, the perpetrators of this attempted murder have not yet been apprehended.

1262

A police van is riddled with shrapnel (left) from a hand grenade attack in Stockholm on August 24. The four policemen in the vehicle at the time could have been killed if the van had not been armored. At right, the Malmö police bomb squad disarms a hand grenade found in Landskrona, on September 22.

August 25: Local politicians in small southern county of Örkelljunga (population 10,000) wrote a desperate letter to the government; its signatories begged for help in solving the problems brought by the wave of asylum seekers. The Immigration Service has opened housing in Örkelljunga for about 250 asylum seekers in apartments, a former motel, and a number of private family residences — including housing for unaccompanied refugee children. An additional 100 units may open up in the Åsljungagården Hotel.

The local politicians wrote in their letter that crime rates have risen and that the police have been called on a number of occasions. Rape, assault, battery and shoplifting are mentioned, as is the temporary closing of the Centrumhuset youth center. At the largest housing facility, an old motel, there are 90 adults and children. The mix of various ethnic groups is said to have led to riots, threats and hunger strikes. The letter states:

“The situation affects everyone who lives and stays in our little county. The climate has grown tougher; many people feel scared and unsafe and with that comes the risk of increased xenophobia, antagonism and exclusion.”

The county swiftly received criticism from the mainstream media, and August 27 the Immigration Service let it be known that they have no intention of helping Örkelljunga. Immigration Service Press Officer Fredrik Bengtsson, quoted in the daily Helsingborgs Dagblad, was especially angry about the county’s criticism concerning different groups being placed together:

“If one thinks along the lines of placing asylum seekers any other way, you’re on a slippery slope. Separate housing for Christians and Muslims is not something we have in society. We have freedom of religion, and that applies to housing as well. You have to stop for a moment and think about it, because that’s not how we do things in society.”

August 26: Swedes heard the news that politicians in the nation’s three largest cities want to offer courses in “self-care and sexual matters” to gypsy women beggars. Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö are applying for 8.7 million kronor (just over $1 million USD) from the European Social Fund, for the project, and hope to reach 250 women. Twice a week they will attend class and get food, free health checkups and free hygiene- and sanitary articles and condoms. They will also receive compensation for “loss of work income.” Local politicians from opposition parties in Stockholm criticized the project strongly.

August 28: “Afrikas Horn,” an immigrants’ organization, reports another “Swedish” ISIS-warrior killed in battle. The man was in his thirties and originally from Somalia, but lived in the immigrant-heavy area of Vivalla in Örebro. The man was apparently one of three who have repeatedly traveled to join ISIS, but were twice intercepted in Turkey and sent back to Sweden. The man is the fourth resident of Örebro who has died as an ISIS terrorist. The chairman of Afrikas Horn tells the local paper Nerikes Allehanda that “the family is in mourning.”

August 28: Ali Khoddami, once an asylum seeker to Sweden, was sentenced to prison for defrauding an elderly woman. Khoddami worked in home care services and tricked Inga Lill, a 90-year-old woman suffering from dementia, out of millions of kronor. By pretending to be the woman’s friend, Khoddami was able to take over her bank accounts and move into her house, along with his family. He used her savings of two million kronor (about $240,000 USD) for luxury items, as well as several cars. Khoddami also managed to persuade Lill to sign over her house — her childhood home built by her father — to him. The house is apparently worth five million kronor ($590,000 USD). It was only after Khoddami put Lill, who has no living relatives, in a nursing home that the fraud was uncovered. The District Court sentenced Khoddami to 2.5 years in prison and fined him 7 million kronor ($830,000) plus interest and damages.

August 28: There were reports that people-smugglers have, over a short period of time, dumped 100 asylum seekers in the Gothenburg area. Pernilla Wallin, unit manager of the application unit at the Immigration Service for the Western Region, told Swedish Public Television that she never thought the situation would escalate like this and that the circumstances are “exceptional.” The Immigration Service is now desperately looking for “external contractors who want to bid on temporary housing for asylum seekers.”

Categories: Asylum seekers, Economy, Europe, Freedom, Hijrah, Human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Progressives, Religion, Sharia law, Sweden
Tags: Asylum seekers, Economy, Europe, Freedom, Hijrah, human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Progressives, Religion, Sharia law, Sweden

Comments: 2 Comments

Germany’s Muslim Demographic Revolution

August 31, 2015

Germany’s Muslim Demographic Revolution, The Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, August 31, 2015

The surge in Germany’s Muslim population — propelled by a wave of migration unprecedented since the Second World War — represents a demographic shift of epic proportions, one that critics of the country’s open-door immigration policy warn will change the face of Germany forever.
“There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe.” — Johannes Hahn, EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
According to Aiman Mazyek, head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, attendance at many mosques has doubled in the past month alone.
A large number (40%) are from countries in the Balkans, including Albania and Kosovo. This implies that nearly half of those arriving in Germany are economic migrants, not refugees fleeing war zones. — Thomas De Maizière, German Interior Minister.
Muslim men residing in Germany routinely take advantage of the social welfare system by bringing two, three or four women from across the Muslim world to Germany, and then marrying them in the presence of an imam. Once in Germany the women request social welfare benefits, including the cost of a separate home for themselves and for their children, on the claim of being a “single parent with children.” — From an exposé broadcast by RTL television.
“For us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition. Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all.” — Viktor Orbán, President of Hungary.

Germany’s Muslim population is set to skyrocket by more than 700,000 in 2015, pushing the total number of Muslims in the country to nearly 6 million for the first time.

The surge in Germany’s Muslim population — propelled by a wave of migration unprecedented since the Second World War — represents a demographic shift of epic proportions, one that critics of the country’s open-door immigration policy warn will change the face of Germany forever.

At a press conference on August 19, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière revealed that a record 800,000 migrants and refugees — the equivalent of nearly one percent of Germany’s total population — are expected to arrive in Germany in 2015, a four-fold increase over 2014. He said that 83,000 migrants had arrived in July alone, and that the figure for August would be higher still.

De Maizière said that although many of the migrants are from the Middle East and North Africa, a large number (40%) are from countries in the Balkans, including Albania and Kosovo. This implies that nearly half of those arriving in Germany are economic migrants, not refugees fleeing war zones.

1229

According to German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, the Berlin refugee center pictured here receives up to 2000 applications for asylum per day. (Image source: Deutsche Welle video screenshot)

Of the 800,000 migrants and refugees arriving in Germany in 2015, at least 80% (or 640,000) are Muslim, according to a recent estimate by the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland, ZMD), a Muslim umbrella group based in Cologne. This estimate is not in dispute.

In addition to the newcomers, the natural rate of population increase of the Muslim community already living in Germany is approximately 1.6% per year (or 77,000), according to data extrapolated from a recent Pew Research Center study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe.

Based on Pew projections, the Muslim population of Germany reached an estimated 5,068,000 by the end of 2014. The 640,000 Muslim migrants arriving in Germany in 2015, combined with the 77,000 natural increase, indicates that the Muslim population of Germany will jump by 717,000, to reach an estimated 5,785,000 by the end of 2015. This would leave Germany with the highest Muslim population in Western Europe.

By way of comparison, the surge in Germany’s Muslim population would be equivalent to the Muslim population of the United States increasing by 3 million in just one year.

Critics say that German officials, under pressure to solve Europe’s migration crisis, are ignoring the long-term consequences of taking in so many migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

In addition to security concerns (Islamic radicals are almost certainly trying to enter Germany disguised as refugees), they say, the surge in Muslim immigration will accelerate the Islamization of Germany, a process that is already well under way.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in post-Christian Germany. This is evidenced by the fact that an increasing number of churches in Germany are being converted into mosques, some of which are publicly sounding calls to prayer (the adhan) from outdoor loudspeaker systems. The increase is such that some neighborhoods in Germany evoke the sights and sounds of the Muslim Middle East.

Islamic Sharia law is advancing rapidly throughout Germany, with Sharia courts now operating in all of Germany’s big cities. This “parallel justice system” is undermining the rule of law in Germany, experts warn, but government officials are “powerless” to do anything about it. At the same time, German judges are increasingly referring and deferring to Sharia law in German law courts.

Polygamy, although illegal under German law, is commonplace among Muslims in all major German cities. In Berlin, for example, it is estimated that fully one-third of the Muslim men living in the Neukölln district of the city have two or more wives.

According to an exposé broadcast by RTL, one of Germany’s leading media companies, Muslim men residing in Germany routinely take advantage of the social welfare system by bringing two, three or four women from across the Muslim world to Germany, and then marrying them in the presence of an imam (Muslim religious leader). Once in Germany the women request social welfare benefits, including the cost of a separate home for themselves and for their children, on the claim of being a “single parent with children.”

Although the welfare fraud committed by Muslim immigrants is an “open secret” costing German taxpayers millions of euros each year, government agencies are reluctant to take action due to political correctness, according to RTL.

Spiraling levels of violent crime perpetrated by shiftless immigrants from the Middle East and the Balkans have turned parts of German cities into “areas of lawlessness” — areas that are de facto “no-go” zones for police.

In Wuppertal, groups of bearded Muslim radicals calling themselves the “Sharia Police” have tried to enforce Islamic law on the streets by distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. In Hamburg, Muslim radicals have infiltrated dozens of primary and secondary schools, where they are imposing Islamic norms and values on non-Muslim students and teachers.

In Berlin, local officials have waived rules prohibiting religious dress in public buildings so that Muslim women can wear headscarves. In Bavaria, Muslim children are being exempted from mandatory visits to former concentration camps as part of Holocaust education programs.

In Bremen, city officials signed an agreement with the city’s 40,000-strong Muslim community. The agreement guarantees the protection of Muslim community properties, the approval of the construction of mosques with minarets and domes, the allotment of land for Muslim cemeteries, the supply of halal food at prisons and hospitals, the recognition of three Muslim holidays, Muslim representation in state institutions and other rights and privileges.

More than 700 German Muslims have joined the Islamic State and traveled to Syria and Iraq, and some of them have continued to receive welfare benefits from the German state while on the battlefields of the Middle East. Jihadists who have returned to Germany and pose an acute threat to national security threat are nevertheless eligible to receive benefits once again.

Germany is home to more than 7,000 Salafists who adhere to a branch of radical Islam that is vehemently opposed to Germany’s democratic order. German officials say that 1,000 of these individuals are especially dangerous (some are believed to have joined sleeper cells) and could attack at any time.

At the same time, however, Salafists are allowed to openly proselytize on German streets to find new recruits and thereby increase their numbers. In a recent recruitment initiative, Salafists launched an unprecedented nationwide campaign, “A Koran in Every Home,” to distribute 25 million copies of the Koran, translated into the German language, to every household in Germany, free of charge.

And yet the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to silence critics of the rise of Islam in Germany. In Bavaria, for example, German activists opposed to the construction of a mega-mosque in Munich have been classified as “extremists” and are being monitored by German intelligence.

German media consistently accuse commentators on the rise of Islam of engaging in hate speech, in an underhanded effort to try to intimidate them into silence. A particular object of wrath is a very popular German-language website called Politically Incorrect (PI), which over the years has grown into a major information resource for people concerned about the spread of Islam in Germany. PI’s motto reads “Against the Mainstream, Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Against the Islamization of Europe.” Not surprisingly, German media elites want PI shut down.

It is quite possible that German Chancellor Angela Merkel — who recently admitted that German multiculturalism has failed — views mass immigration from the Muslim world as the solution to Germany’s collapsing birth rate, which is among the lowest in the world.

The German government expects the population to shrink from roughly 81 million today to 67 million in 2060, although Germany’s statistics office, Destatis, recently reported that high levels of immigration would cause the country’s population to shrink more slowly than previously expected.

A study by the Hamburg-based World Economy Institute has warned that the low birthrate threatens the long-term viability of the German economy. “No other industrial country is deteriorating at this speed despite the strong influx of young migrant workers,” the report said. “Germany cannot continue to be a dynamic business hub in the long-run without a strong jobs market.”

Germany will need to do a far better job of integrating immigrants if they are to be a net gain for the German economy. A recent study by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research showed that Muslim immigrants were more likely to be unemployed and living off the social welfare state than any other migrant group in Germany. The report said that root cause for the high unemployment rates is the lack of educational attainment and job training qualifications.

Meanwhile, the migration crisis shows no sign of abating. At a summit on migration held in Vienna on August 27, the EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Johannes Hahn, said: “There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe. Ten to 12 million in Syria, 5 million Palestinians, 2 million Ukrainians and about 1 million in the southern Caucasus.”

On August 21, Germany suspended the so-called Dublin Regulation — a law that requires people seeking refuge within the EU to do so in the first European country they reach — for asylum seekers from Syria. This means that Syrians reaching Germany will be allowed to stay while their applications are being processed. Critics say the move will encourage even more migrants to make their way to Germany.

Most Germans seem to be unfazed by what is happening to their country. An August 21 poll for German broadcaster ZDF showed that 60% of Germans thought their country could cope with the high number of refugees, and 86% said that Germany was a country of immigration.

In an interview with the newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, Aiman Mazyek, the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, said that so many Muslims have been flowing into the country that attendance at many mosques has doubled in the past month alone. Commenting on the demographic revolution sweeping Germany, Mazyek summed it up with an understatement: “The number of Muslims in Germany will increase significantly.”

In nearby Hungary, President Viktor Orbán has been one of the few European heads of state to sound the alarm. “A year ago I said that we live in times when anything can happen, and I still say so today,” he said recently. “Who would have thought that Europe would not be capable of protecting its own borders against unarmed refugees?” He added:

“For us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition. Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all.”

Categories: Free world, Germany, Ideology, Immigration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Political correctness, Sharia law
Tags: Europe, Free world, Germany, Ideology, Immigration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Political correctness, Sharia law

Comments: 1 Comment

Britain: The “Struggle of Our Generation”

August 10, 2015

Britain: The “Struggle of Our Generation”, The Gatestone Institute, Samuel Westrop, August 10, 2015

“We’ve got to show that if you say ‘yes I condemn terror — but the Kuffar are inferior’, or ‘violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter’ — then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not, and in a lot of cases it’s not unwittingly, you are providing succour to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence.” — Prime Minister David Cameron.
In a series of religious rulings published on its website, the Islamic Network charity advocated the murder of apostates; encouraged Muslims to hate non-Muslims; stated that when non-Muslims die, “the whole of humanity are relieved;” and described Western civilisation as “evil.”
The Charity Commission’s solution, however, was to give the charity’s trustees booklets titled, “How to manage risks in your charity,” and warn them not to do it again.

On July 20, Prime Minister David Cameron outlined his government’s plans to counteract Islamic extremism, which he described as the “struggle of our generation.”

In a speech before Ninestiles School, in the city of Birmingham, Cameron articulated a view of the Islamist threat that, just a couple of years ago, few else in British politics would have dared to support.

In a report for BBC Radio 4, the journalist John Ware described Cameron’s speech, and the government’s proposed counter-extremism measures, as “something no British government has ever done in my lifetime: the launch of a formal strategy to recognize, challenge and root out ideology.”

Cameron’s speech was wide-ranging. It addressed the causes, methods and consequences of Islamist extremism.

1199

(Image source: BBC video screenshot)

We must recognize, Cameron reasoned, that Islamist terror is the product of Islamist ideology. It is definitely not, he argued, “because of historic injustices and recent wars, or because of poverty and hardship. This argument, what I call the grievance justification, must be challenged. … others might say: it’s because terrorists are driven to their actions by poverty. But that ignores the fact that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families or a Western university education.”

“Extreme doctrine” is to blame — a doctrine that is “hostile to basic liberal values … Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation. … which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others.” This is a doctrine “based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam.”

People are drawn to such extremist ideas, Cameron argued, because:

“[Y]ou don’t have to believe in barbaric violence to be drawn to the ideology. No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalisation. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.

“It may begin with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death. Put another way, the extremist world view is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination.”

To counteract the extremist threat, Cameron concludes, the government will “tackle both parts of the creed — the non-violent and violent. This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence — but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.”

Further, no longer will extremist groups be able to burnish their moderate credentials by pointing to ISIS as the Islamic bogeyman:

“We’ve got to show that if you say ‘yes I condemn terror — but the Kuffar are inferior’, or ‘violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter’ – then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not, and in a lot of cases it’s not unwittingly, you are providing succour to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence.

For example, I find it remarkable that some groups say ‘We don’t support ISIL’ as if that alone proves their anti-extremist credentials. And let’s be clear Al-Qaeda don’t support ISIL. So we can’t let the bar sink to that level. Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organisation cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists.”

Rather radically for a Western leader, Cameron also asserted that, “simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work… it is an exercise in futility to deny that. And more than that, it can be dangerous. To deny it has anything to do with Islam means you disempower the critical reforming voices; the voices that are challenging the fusing of religion and politics…”

Cameron’s speech was groundbreaking. No previous Prime Minister in past decades would have dared to make such statements. This is not to say, however, that it is without fault.

Cameron is not just talk. An “Extremism Analysis Unit” has been set up within the Home Office, which will serve to tackle Islamist extremism, including “non-violent” groups. According to the journalist John Ware, the new body is currently preparing lists of extremist preachers and groups.

More importantly, a variety of new legislation is being brought before Parliament. However, some of the proposed laws, critics argue, are draconian. “Banning Orders” will outlaw designated “extremist groups.” “Extremism Disruption Orders,” meanwhile, will restrict designated “extremists” from appearing on television, or publishing without the authorities’ approval. And “Closure Orders” will allow the government to close any institution deemed guilty of promoting extremism.

Cameron has correctly and radically diagnosed the problem of Islamic extremism. His solutions, however, do not appear promising.

A more useful next step would be for the government to tackle its own relationships with extremist groups. Britain’s registered charities offer a particularly vivid example of Islamist extremism going unchallenged.

In 2014, I wrote about the Islamic Network, a group that describes itself as “a da’wah[proselytizing] organisation which aims to promote awareness and understanding of the religion of Islam.”

In a series of religious rulings published on its website, the Islamic Network charity advocated themurder of apostates; encouraged Muslims to hate non-Muslims; stated that when non-Muslims die, “the whole of humanity are relieved;” and described Western civilisation as “evil.” Further, the Islamic Network directed a great deal of hatred towards the Jews. Its website claimed: “The Jews strive their utmost to corrupt the beliefs, morals and manners of the Muslims. The Jews scheme and crave after possessing the Muslim lands, as well as the lands of others.”

In spite of these views, the Islamic Network is a registered charity, which means it is entitled to subsidy from the taxpayer.

As a result of revealing the material published on the Islamic Network’s website, as well as several complaints submitted to the Charity Commission, the government opened an inquiry into the charity. After a year of deliberation, the Charity Commission published its report, which concluded that the Islamic Network had indeed published extremist material.

The Charity Commission’s solution, however, was to give the charity’s trustees booklets titled, “How to manage risks in your charity,” and warn them not to do it again.

Britain may finally have a government that understands the problem of Islamist extremism, but if government bodies fail to challenge extremist charities such as the Islamic Network, then what use is this enlightenment?

The Islamic Network is but one of many dozens of examples. Why is the British organizationInterpal, for example, still allowed to be a registered charity? Interpal is a designated terrorist organization under United States law. Its trustees regularly meet with senior leaders of the terror group Hamas. In 2013, for instance, Interpal trustee Essam Yusuf took part in a ceremony with the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, at which they expressed praise for Hamas’ military wing, the Al Qassam Brigades, and glorified “martyrdom.”

Or what of Islamic Relief, one of Britain’s largest charities? Established by the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Relief’s directors have included Ahmed Al-Rawi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader who, in 2004, supported jihad against British and American troops in Iraq; and Essam El-Haddad, who is accused by an Egyptian court of divulging Egyptian state secrets to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and using Islamic Relief to finance global terrorism.

Despite Islamic Relief’s links to Islamist extremism, the charity continues to receive millions of pounds from the British government.

David Cameron’s speech on July 20 should be applauded. If another political party had won the recent general election, no such speech would have been made. But before the Prime Minister turns his hand to censorship, perhaps the government should address extremist groups closer to home.

Categories: Antisemitism, Culture, David Cameron, England, Hamas, Human rights, Iranian proxies, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamic war on Christians, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Khamenei, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Palestinians, UK
Tags: Antisemitism, Culture, David Cameron, England, Hamas, human rights, Iranian proxies, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamic war on Christians, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Khamenei, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Palestinians, UK

Comments: 1 Comment

Leftist and Islamic Policymakers Outlaw the Truth

July 4, 2015

Leftist and Islamic Policymakers Outlaw the Truth, American Thinker, Sonia Bailley, July 4, 2015

No need to worry, the recent Ramadan triple slaughter fest in Tunisia, France and Kuwait has nothing to do with Islam. There is no linkage between Islam and terrorism, and the word Islamic need not be used to describe the terrorists because their murderous and barbaric ideology has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is, after all, a religion of peace that is being hijacked, perverted and distorted by only a small percentage of savage extremists.

Welcome to the false narrative that Western leaders, mainstream media outlets, and academic elites are enforcing on civil society to help shape the public’s perception of Islam so that it is always presented in a positive light. Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam is in violation of Islamic law, which forbids any criticism of Islam, even what that criticism expresses the truth. Stories that are reported according to this narrative need not have anything to do with factual accuracy or truth. Both the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in Texas and the beheading in Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma last September were reported as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

With the aid of leftist and Islamic policymakers shaping the course of international relations and security policies, that false narrative is finding its way into international policy to destroy the West’s hard-won, cherished core values. Realities and facts that might tarnish Islam’s name are deemed hate speech and becoming lost through censorship. The 57-state Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that happens to be rooted in communism, and the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world pushing to criminalize any criticism of Islam, are two such policymakers who are influencing world leaders and the news media.

Most Western world leaders are bleating the same empty platitudes about the recent Ramadan terrorist attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait, carefully avoiding the word “Islam.” UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained to the media that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the terrorists who “do these things…do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology.” When asked if it’s right to say that the recent Ramadan attacks have nothing to do with Islam, UK Home Secretary Theresa May responded to BBC’s Andrew Marr in the positive, “that it has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion,” and that the terror attacks are “about a perversion of Islam.”

Instead of issuing travel warnings not to vacation in Islamic countries especially during Ramadan, the Islamic “sacred” month of feasting — a month rife with bloodshed and battle since Islam’s inception, when armed raids on Meccan trade caravans and bloody battles were waged by Mohammed and his followers (including the 1973 Yom Kippur War on the 10^th of Ramadan), not to mention the ISIS Ramadan message that jihad is 10 times more obligatory during Ramadan, and that those who die will be rewarded by Allah ten times more than during the rest of the year — Western leaders like Cameron continue to nourish the official politically correct narrative of Islam being a religion of peace not linked to terrorism.

The twisted and perverted ideology to which both Cameron and May refer, pervades pages and pages of the Koran and other Islamic doctrine, inspiring jihadists and religious Muslims to “do these things,” including operating child sex slave grooming gangs throughout Europe, especially in the UK, to rape, pimp, torture and sometimes kill non-Muslim underage schoolgirls. The Koran itself contains over 100 verses promoting violence against non-Muslims who, to this very day, remain victims of the verse.

What lies at the heart of Islam is an antipathy towards non-Muslims, as well as a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to wage Jihad and eventually subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule in the name of Allah. Massive street prayer is one form of subjugation conducted only to intimidate and Islamize Western society, to remind non-Muslims who’s really in control. Similarly, forcing non-Muslims in their own countries, in the UK for example, to eat halal slaughtered meat — an utterly inhumane and barbaric Islamic practice, not to mention a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by Muslim Brotherhood organizations that fund jihad worldwide — when only a mere 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and when the Koran specifically exempts its followers from eating halal if it’s not available, is another way to subjugate non-Muslims.

People are becoming sitting duck targets for Islamic terrorists in Western countries and abroad because of the little-known but powerful world policymakers like the OSCE and OIC who influence world leaders to kowtow to Islamic interests. Western leaders fail to convey an accurate picture and understanding of what is really going on in the world because it might reflect badly on Islam, and they don’t want to appear “Islamophobic” for fear of more terrorist attacks. By failing to report the truth, they are denying citizens the opportunity to take appropriate action that could save their lives when faced with something that could be considered a threat, such as a beach vacation in an Islamic country over Ramadan.

The dead European tourists in Tunisia might still be here today had there been an undistorted flow of information to warn them that warfare and killing in the name of Islam are encouraged during the month of Ramadan. Furthermore, people might choose to avoid Islamic countries at all times if they were aware that these countries rely upon the most non-liberal draconian and barbaric Islamic or sharia-based corporal punishments imaginable.

The anti-blasphemy narrative pushed by the highly influential but little-known OIC, ehich speaks on behalf of over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, not only silences any expression considered to be offensive and insulting to Islam, but punishes the offenders, as Mohammed did to his dissenters and insulters. They were either condemned to hell or killed. Because Muslims consider Mohammed as the ideal model for mankind to follow, many Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also made blasphemy subject to the death penalty with their anti-blasphemy laws.

It is this anti-blasphemy law that the OIC is striving to legally enforce on the world in order to curtail speech and expression when it comes to Islam — not so much for religious compliance as for the global subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam. Since 2005, the OIC has been pushing relentlessly for a UN blasphemy resolution (Resolution 16/18 passed in 2011) to silence so-called Islamophobia — a term deliberately coined and marketed in the 1990s by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, one of the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups worldwide, to drive public discourse and policy. However, the OIC’s top priority is to globally criminalize any criticism of Islam, and is working with the Muslim Brotherhood to accomplish this. Ten years later, in 2015, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime in some European countries.

The highly influential yet little-known OSCE that is rooted in communism, is supposed to protect and promote civil liberties. Instead, it is negotiating them away by capitulating to the OIC narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal from the 1990s is to destroy Western civilization from within. Its goal of global domination is to be accomplished not through violence, at least not yet, but rather through the slow infiltration of Western government, military, judicial and academic institutions.

So far, there has been practically no opposition from any Western administration in power, only cooperation from world leaders, government officials, and leftist policymakers. In fact, the cooperation from Western leaders with OSCE and OIC policymakers has been so great, that the U.S. co-sponsored Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan, and helped usher it through in 2011, despite this resolution being a direct assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

At an OSCE May session in Vienna (on how the media can help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism), OSCE panelist Leila Ghandi, producer and TV show host on the most popular Moroccan TV channel (2MTV) that is over 60% government-owned, maintained that the truth or facts about “a community” can sometimes constitute hate speech when those facts are offensive and therefore should not be said. The panelist’s words echo those of the new OIC Secretary General, Iyad Amin Madani, who tweeted earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, that “freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.” In other words, truth about Islam is designated as hate speech.

Furthermore, OSCE panelist Victor Khroul, correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya, a Russian state-owned international news agency, questions why the mainstream media throughout the world still refer to the “self-proclaimed self-established state in the Middle East” as the Islamic State. His words echo those of Madani, who proclaimed last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam. Khroul claims it’s a mistake for these people to be called Muslim and their state Islamic, which only “confuses the audience with this correlation with Islam.” He maintains that it’s still possible “to find other words to describe this so-called state and its activity,” discounting the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its motivation to Islam and its acts to Allah. The name Islamic State does not have to be rectified because it accurately reflects reality, defines the organization in question, and is therefore a correct term that would sit well in the world of Confucius and his doctrine on rectifying names.

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, and the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law and jihad (until he was dismissed in 2008 for linking Islam with terrorism with his Red Pill Briefings), stresses the urgency of defining the enemy as he defines himself: “you cannot target what you will not define…if I can’t use the concepts of Jihad that Al-Qaeda say they rely on, then I can’t understand what they are going to do.”

Author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Coughlin attended the OSCE May session and responded to the OSCE jargon as follows:

“Once you decide that facts on the ground as they present themselves, can be considered hate speech, this is no longer about truth…you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know when they formulate their decisions, and replacing them with narratives to keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated and verified. That can never be considered hate speech. We’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation.”

Rather than disseminate vital information to the public that can save lives, Western world leaders are betraying their citizens by submitting to the OSCE and OIC narrative of outlawing any criticism of Islam and rendering truth illegal. Reassuring citizens that Islam is a religion of peace merely renders them incapacitated from exercising sound judgment, crippling their ability to make the right decision in the face of potential harm.

While global institutions and national security policies are being shaped, and compromised, by highly influential but ill-known world organizations such as the OSCE and OIC, it’s critical that citizens get to know who those policymakers really are, and become more engaged in public affairs and the political process in order to arrest the Islamization process of the West…before it’s too late to reverse.

Categories: Education, Europe, Foreign policy, Human rights, Ideology, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Koran, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Obama's America, Political correctness, Ramadan, Sharia law, UK
Tags: David Cameron, Education, Europe, Foreign Policy, human rights, Ideology, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America, Political correctness, Ramadan, Sharia law, UK

Comments: Be the first to comment

How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion

June 3, 2015

How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 3, 2015

(Much the same nonsense infects foreign policy and propels the notion that the Islamic State is not Islamic. — DM)

islam

What is Islam? The obvious dictionary definition answer is that it’s a religion, but legally speaking it actually enjoys all of the advantages of race, religion and culture with none of the disadvantages.

Islam is a religion when mandating that employers accommodate the hijab, but when it comes time to bring it into the schools, places that are legally hostile to religion, American students are taught about Islam, visit mosques and even wear burkas and recite Islamic prayers to learn about another culture. Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race.

Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

Muslims are treated as a racial collective rather than a group that shares a set of views about the world.

That has made it impossible for the left to deal with ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or non-Muslims from Muslim families like Salman Rushdie. If Islam is more like skin color than an ideology, then ex-Muslims, like ex-Blacks, cannot and should not exist. Under such conditions, atheism is not a debate, but a hate crime. Challenging Islam does not question a creed; it attacks the existence of an entire people.

Muslim atheists, unlike all other atheists, are treated as race traitors both by Muslims and leftists. The left has accepted the Brotherhood’s premise that the only authentic Middle Easterner is a Muslim (not a Christian or a Jew) and that the only authentic Muslim is a Salafist (even if they don’t know the word).

The racialization of Islam has turned blasphemy prosecutions into an act of tolerance while making a cartoon of a religious figure racist even when it is drawn by ex-Muslims like Bosch Fawstin. The New York Times will run photos of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” covered in dung and pornography, but refuses to run Mohammed cartoons because it deems one anti-religious and the other racist.

The equating of Islam with Arabs and Pakistanis has made it nearly impossible for the media to discuss violence against Christians in those parts of the world. The racialization of Islam has made Arab Christians, like Bangladeshi atheists, a contradiction in terms. The ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi could only be covered by giving them a clearly defined separate identity. Middle Eastern Christians are increasingly moving to avoid being categorized as Arabs because it is the only way to break through this wall of ignorance.

While racialization is the biggest Muslim privilege, race provides no protection for many Islamic religious practices. Muslims then seek religious discrimination laws to protect these practices even if it’s often a matter of debate whether their lawsuits protect their religious practices or impose them on others.

Islam is a theocracy. When it leaves the territories conquered by Islam, it seeks to replicate that theocracy through violence and by adapting the legal codes of the host society to suit its purposes.

Islamic blasphemy laws are duplicated using hate crime laws. Employers are obligated to make religious concessions to Muslim employees because of laws protecting religious practices, but many of these practices, such as refusing to carry out jobs involving pork, liquor or Seeing Eye dogs, are really ways of theocratically forcing behaviors that Islam forbids out of public life much as Saudi Arabia or Iran do.

Accusations of bigotry are used to outlaw ideas that Islam finds blasphemous and religious protection laws are used to banish behaviors that it disapproves of. By switching from race to religion and back again, Islamists construct a virtual theocracy by exploiting laws designed to protect different types of groups.

Religions in America traded theocracy for religious freedom. They gave up being able to impose their practices on others in exchange for being able to freely practice their own religions. Islam rejects religious freedom. It exploits it to remove the freedom of belief and practice of others. When it cannot do so through religious protection laws, it does so through claims of bigotry.

Religions were not meant to be immunized from blasphemy because that is theocracy. Instead religions are protected from restrictions, rather than from criticism. Islam insists on being protected from both. It makes no concessions to the freedom of others while demanding maximum religious accommodation.

While race and religion are used to create negative spaces in which Islam cannot be challenged, the creed is promoted positively as a culture. Presenting Islam as a culture allows it easier entry into schools and cultural institutions. Islamic missionary activity uses the Western longing for oriental exotica that its political activists loudly decry to inject it into secular spaces that would ordinarily be hostile to organized religion.

Leftists prefer to see Islam as a culture rather than a religion. Their worldview is not open to Islam’s clumsy photocopy of the deity that they have already rejected in their own watered down versions of Christianity and Judaism. But they are constantly seeking an aimless and undefined spirituality in non-Western cultures that they imagine are free of the materialism and hypocrisy of Western culture.

Viewing Islam as a culture allows the left to project its own ideology on a blank slate. That is why liberals remain passionately convinced that Islam is a religion of social justice. Their Islam is a mirror that reflects back their own views and ideas at them. They pretend to respect Islam as a culture without bothering to do any more than learn a few words and names so that they can seem like world travelers.

By morphing into a culture, Islam sheds its content and becomes a style, a form of dress, a drape of cloth, a style of beard, a curvature of script and a whiff of spices. It avoids uncomfortable questions about what the Koran actually says and instead sells the religion as a meaningful lifestyle. This approach has always had a great deal of appeal for African-Americans who were cut off from their own heritage through Islamic slavery, but it also enjoys success with white upper class college students.

The parents of those students often learn too late that Islam is not just another interchangeable monotheistic religion, that its mosques are not places where earnest grad students lecture elderly congregants about social justice and that its laws are not reducible to the importance of being nice to others.

Like a magician using misdirection, these transformations from religion to race, from race to culture and from culture to religion, distract Americans from asking what Islam really believes. By combining race, religion and culture, it replicates the building blocks of its theocracy within our legal and social spaces.

Separately each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. By combining them, Islam gains the advantages of all three, and by moving from one to the other, it escapes all of the disadvantages. The task of its critics is to deracialize Islam, to reduce it to an ideology and to ask what it really believes.

Islam is a privileged religion. And there’s a word for that. Theocracy.

Categories: Cartoonophobia, Christians, Education, Foreign policy, Freedom, Human rights, Ideology, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic war on women, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jews, Moral equivalence, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Obama's America, Political correctness, Religion, Religion of Peace, Sharia law, Support for terrorism, Terrorism, Theocracy
Tags: Cartoonophobia, Christians, Education, Foreign Policy, human rights, Ideology, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic war on women, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jews, Moral equivalence, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Obama's America, Political correctness, Religion, religion of peace, Sharia law, Support for terrorism, Theocracy

Comments: Be the first to comment

European Welfare Systems Milked by Jihadis

May 31, 2015

European Welfare Systems Milked by Jihadis, The Clarion Project, Soeren Kern, May 31, 2015

Khalid-AbdurahmanIP

Khalid Abdurahman (center)

The disclosures show that Islamists continue to exploit European social welfare systems to finance their activities both at home and abroad — costing European taxpayers potentially millions of euros each year.

Anjem Choudary, a British-born radical Islamic cleric who lives off the British welfare state, has repeatedly urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so they have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims.

Choudary believes that Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims, as a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

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

More than 30 Danish jihadists have collected unemployment benefits totaling 379,000 Danish krone (€51,000; $55,000) while fighting with the Islamic State in Syria, according to leaked intelligence documents.

The fraud, which was reported by Television 2 Danmark on May 18, comes less than six months after the Danish newspaperBT revealed that Denmark had paid unemployment benefits to 28 other jihadists while they were waging war in Syria.

The disclosures show that Islamists continue to exploit European social welfare systems to finance their activities both at home and abroad — costing European taxpayers potentially millions of euros each year.

According to Television 2 Danmark, the welfare fraud was discovered after the Danish intelligence agency PET began sharing data about known Danish jihadists with the Ministry of Employment to determine if any of these individuals were receiving unemployment benefits.

As a percentage of the overall population, Denmark is the second-largest European source of foreign fighters in Syria after Belgium. At least 115 Danes have become foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq since Syria’s civil war broke out in March 2011, according to a recent report by the Center for Terrorism Analysis, an agency of PET. The report states:

“CTA assesses that approximately half of those who have gone abroad are now back in Denmark, while a quarter of them remain in the conflict zone. CTA assesses that two thirds of these individuals have been in the conflict zone for more than a year. The remaining travelers are located elsewhere abroad. CTA assesses that at least 19 travelers from Denmark have been killed in Syria and Iraq.”

The CTA admits that, “the number may be higher” than 115. The comment is a tacit recognition that it does not know exactly how many Danes have become jihadists abroad.

In April, it emerged that the parents of Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein — a Danish-Jordanian jihadist responsible for the terror attacks in Copenhagen in February 2015 in which two people died — have been welfare recipients in Denmark for more than 20 years. Omar’s parents received a total of 3.8 million krone between 1994 and 2014, amounting to roughly 500,000 euros or $560,000.

Social welfare fraud of the kind perpetrated in Denmark is being repeated throughout Europe.

In Austria, police arrested 13 jihadists in November 2014 who were allegedly collecting welfare payments to finance their trips to Syria. Among those detained was Mirsad Omerovic, 32, an extremist Islamic preacher who police say raised several hundred thousand euros for the war in Syria. A father of six who lives exclusively off the Austrian welfare state, Omerovic has benefited from additional payments for paternity leave (Väterkarenz).

Austrian police also arrested, in August 2014, nine other jihadists who were attempting to join the jihad in Syria. Their trip was being financed by Austrian taxpayers by way of social welfare payments.

In Belgium, 29 jihadists from the Flemish cities of Antwerp and Vilvoorde were prevented from receiving social welfare benefits from the state. The move came after an investigation found that the individuals had been accessing their Belgian bank accounts by withdrawing money from banks in Turkey, just across the Syrian border.

Per capita, Belgium is the largest European source of jihadist fighters going to the Middle East; up to 400 Belgians have become jihadists in Syria and Iraq.

In Britain, Terri Nicholson, an assistant commander at the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism command unit, told the Telegraph newspaper in November 2014 that taxpayers’ money was being claimed fraudulently and used by jihadists in Iraq and Syria. “We are seeing a diverse fraud, including substantial fraud online, abuse of the benefits system, abuse of student loans, in order to fund terrorism,” she said.

Nicholson added that women were increasingly being used to smuggle welfare money out of Britain to fund terrorists abroad, because they supposedly arouse less suspicion.

In November 2014, for example, Amal El-Wahabi, a British mother of two, was jailed for 28 months for trying to arrange to smuggle €20,000 to her husband, a jihadist fighting in Syria. She persuaded her friend, Nawal Msaad, to carry the cash in her underwear in return for €1,000. Msaad was stopped at Heathrow Airport. The money she was carrying is thought to have come from social welfare payments.

Anjem Choudary, a British-born radical Islamic cleric who lives off the British welfare state, has repeatedly urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so they have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims.

Choudary believes that Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form ofjizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims, as a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In 2010, The Sun reported that Choudary takes home more than £25,000 ($39,000) a year in welfare benefits. Among other handouts, Choudary receives £15,600 a year in housing benefit to keep him in a £320,000 ($495,000) house in Leytonstone, East London. He also receives £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 income support and £3,120 child benefits. Because his welfare payments are not taxed, his income is equivalent to a £32,500 ($50,000) salary. By comparison, the average annual earnings of full-time workers in Britain was £26,936 ($41,000) in 2014.

Although analysts are divided over the question of how many followers Choudary actually has, no one disputes the fact that he is far from alone in exploiting the British welfare system.

British taxpayers have footed the bill for the Moroccan-born Najat Mostafa, the second wife of the Egyptian-born Islamic hate preacher Abu Hamza, who was extradited to the United States in October 2012. She has lived in a £1 million, five-bedroom house in one of London’s wealthiest neighborhoods for more than 15 years, and has raised the couple’s eight children there.

Abu Hamza and his family are believed to have cost British taxpayers more than £338,000 in benefits. He has also received £680,000 in legal assistance for his failed U.S. extradition battle. The cost of keeping him in a British prison since 2004 is estimated at £500,000.

Fellow extremist Islamic preacher Abu Qatada, a Palestinian, has cost British taxpayers an estimated £500,000. He has also won £390,000 in legal aid to avoid deportation to Jordan.

The Islamic preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian, obtained £300,000 benefits before being exiled to Lebanon. The money was provided to raise his six children, including Yasmin Fostok, a single mother who makes a living as a pole-dancer in London nightclubs.

More instances of British welfare abuse can be found here.

In France, the government in March 2015 cut welfare benefits for 290 persons identified as jihadists. French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve downplayed the problem. “We shouldn’t make a controversy of this subject or allow people to think no action has been taken. We’re taking this seriously and will continue to do so,” he said.

In Germany, an analysis of the estimated 450 German jihadists fighting in Syria found that more than 20% of them were receiving welfare benefits from the German state. In addition, the 150 jihadists who have returned to Germany are eligible to begin receiving benefits again.

The Interior Minister of Bavaria, Joachim Herrmann, said:

“It should never come to this. German taxpayers’ money should never directly or indirectly finance Islamist terrorism. The benefits of such terrorist parasites should be eliminated immediately. Not working and spreading terror at the expense of the German state is not only extremely dangerous, it is also the worst provocation and disgrace!”

Separately, a study by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research found that Muslim immigrants were more likely to be unemployed and living off the social welfare state than any other immigrant group in Germany.

According to the study, 55% of the immigrants from Lebanon are unemployed, as are 46% from Iraq, 37.5% from Afghanistan, 37.1% from Iran, 27.1% from Morocco and 21.5% from Turkey. In real terms, immigrants from Turkey (140,000) constitute the largest number of unemployed. The report said the root cause for the high unemployment rates was the lack of educational attainment and job training qualifications.

In the Netherlands, a Dutch jihadist named Khalid Abdurahman appeared in a YouTube video with five severed heads. Originally from Iraq, Abdurahman was living on social welfare benefits in the Netherlands for more than a decade before he joined the Islamic State in Syria. Dutch social services declared him to be unfit for work and taxpayers paid for the medication to treat him for claustrophobia and schizophrenia.

Meanwhile, city councils across the Netherlands are attempting to help rather than to prosecute returning jihadists. In the city of Delft, for example, local politicians are using taxpayer money to “reintegrate” jihadists and to help them “rebuild their lives.” Dutch public television explained it this way: “The idea is that the local authorities do not want to alienate the returnees by means of a repressive approach which might lead to their further radicalization.”

Separately, several Dutch-Moroccan organizations sent a letter to the Labor Party (Partij van de Arbeid, PvdA) in which they threatened to urge Dutch-Moroccans to stop supporting the party if it agreed to a proposal by its Minister of Social Affairs, Lodewijk Asscher, to cut social welfare payments to Moroccans who do not live in the Netherlands. Asscher accused the organizations of using an “improper electoral threat.”

In Spain, police arrested five Muslims in the Basque Country who allegedly pocketed the social welfare payments of Redouan Bensbih, a Moroccan immigrant killed on the battlefield in Syria in March. Despite his no longer living in Spain, Bensbih continued receiving monthly payments of €836 euros ($920), which the suspects are accused of having wired to Morocco.

Meanwhile, a network of more than 250 butcher shops, grocery stores and telephone call centers was accused of financing the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. The network used the so-called hawala system — defined by Interpol as money transfer without money movement — where money is transferred through an informal and virtually untraceable system.

According to the El País newspaper, “the secret hawala network in Spain is comprised of about 300 hawaladars — the majority of them Pakistanis — who run clandestine offices in Barcelona, Tarragona, Lleida, Bilbao, Santander, Valencia, Madrid, Logroño, León, Jaén and Almería, and other cities with large Pakistani communities.” They manage the savings of over 150,000 Muslims, many of whom are believed to be receiving social welfare payments from the Spanish state, without any legal oversight.

The network allegedly paid the salaries of Spanish jihadists in Syria: They received about $800 if they were single and $1,200 if they were married.

In February 2015, a Pakistani couple residing in the Basque capital of Vitoria was accused of falsifying identity documents to fraudulently obtain social welfare payments for 10 fictitious individuals. The man was receiving six different welfare payments and his wife was receiving four. Each welfare payment was between €6,000 ($6,600) and €10,000 ($11,000) per month. Police say that over a period of three years, the couple defrauded the Basque government of more than €395,000 ($453,000).

The Basque Country is known for its liberal social welfare policies; all residents, including illegal immigrants, are eligible to receive welfare payments. In 2012, a massive wave of immigrants from Morocco and Algeria arrived in the Basque Country in order to — in the words of a local politician — “live off of welfare benefits without working.”

According to local observers, more than 65% of the immigrants from Morocco and Algeria are receiving benefits. Auditors found that in 2012 alone the Basque Country made €86 million ($95 million) in dubious welfare payments.

In Sweden, the state employment agency, Arbetsformedlingen, terminated a pilot program aimed at helping immigrants find jobs. Information had emerged that Muslim employees at the agency were helping jobseekers find jobs as jihadists for the Islamic State. Operatives from the Islamic State had also allegedly bribed — and in some cases issued death threats against — agency employees in efforts to recruit fighters from Sweden.

Also in Sweden, the government said it wanted to impose a special tax to finance a jobs program for returning jihadists. The project is based on a scheme in the Swedish city of Örebro, where the city is using taxpayer money to help returning jihadists find employment. Town councilor Rasmus Persson said:

“We have discussed how we should work for these guys who have come back, to ensure that they do not return to the battlefield. They should be helped to process the traumatic experiences they have been through.”

The project was challenged by a Swedish soldier deployed in Afghanistan, who said that he was likely to get less help when he came back to Sweden than returning jihadists were. Soldier Fredrik Brandberg wrote:

“It would be wonderful if I was met with a comparable program after my homecoming, after which I could feel safe in having a regular job, with monthly income and a social stable situation in the society where I wouldn’t need to wonder whether I’m wanted or not.”

A spokesperson for the Swedish Armed Forces said that what happens to soldiers upon their return from war was not an issue that fell under its mandate.

Categories: Britain, Domestic policy, Europe, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Ideology, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Moral equivalence, Religion of Peace, Welfare for jihadists
Tags: Britain, Domestic policy, Europe, Foreign Policy, Funding terrorism, Ideology, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Moral equivalence, religion of peace, Welfare for jihadists

Comments: 2 Comments

The Pope and the Palestinians

May 20, 2015

The Pope and the Palestinians, Front Page Magazine, William Kilpatrick, May 20, 2015

(The article also deal with Islam in general, as to which the Pope’s fantasies reflect those of the Obama Administration and others. — DM)

francis-and-abbas-450x253

Perhaps the ultimate expression of this faith in Islam was Pope Francis’ assertion in Evangelii Gaudium that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

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

Contrary to reports in the mainstream press, Pope Francis did not call Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas “an angel of peace.” The correct translation of the pope’s words is “I have thought of you: that you could be an angel of peace.”

Why, then, was it so easy to believe the initial reports? Perhaps because the initial reports seemed to align with previous papal overtures to Palestinian leaders. Pope Francis had previously called Abbas a “man of peace,” he has shown sympathy for Palestinian grievances, and other popes have given the appearance of lending legitimacy to the Palestinian cause. For example, Pope John Paul II is reported to have received PLO leader Yasser Arafat on twelve different occasions.

Arafat was a terrorist. One would think that the Vatican would have wanted to limit its contacts with him. The same goes for Abbas. He has repeatedly honored and praised Palestinian “martyrs” who have slaughtered innocent Jews. There is evidence that he helped fund the 1972 operation that killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. Why is he accorded such a cordial reception at the Vatican?

Although the Church has often declared its spiritual bond with Jews, it has had a less harmonious relationship with the nation where approximately half the world’s Jews now reside. The Vatican was the last Western government to accord diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel (in 1993). In addition, on several occasions, prominent prelates have likened Israel to King Herod, the murderer of innocents; and others have accused Israel of being an apartheid state. Meanwhile, Catholic NGOs such as Pax Christi and Trocaire have been major players in the boycott, divest, and sanctions campaign against Israel.

Of course, the BDS campaign directly impinges on Israeli security. So do the calls by numerous Christian leaders to tear down the security barrier that divides Israel from the West Bank. On his trip to the Holy Land a year ago, Pope Francis allowed himself to be photographed in prayer at a section of the wall where a large graffiti message compared Bethlehem to the Warsaw Ghetto. In a naïve gesture of solidarity with Palestinians, the pope was unwittingly lending credence to the idea that the Israelis could be compared to the Nazi occupiers of Poland.

The wall was constructed to prevent suicide attacks against Israeli citizens. It’s estimated that its construction has saved thousands of lives. To suggest that the wall is offensive, as many Christians have done, is to suggest that Jewish lives don’t matter. Moreover, such judgments betray an entirely lopsided view of the situation. Take the Gaza conflict. The Catholic hierarchy typically had little to say about the daily rocket barrages launched against Israeli citizens from Gaza, but it was quick to condemn Israel on those occasions when it finally retaliated. In a similar vein, Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, blamed last year’s Gaza war on the Israeli embargo which, he said, had turned Gaza into “a factory of desperate people, designed to easily turn into extremists.”

In short, many Catholic leaders have shown a tendency to blame Israel for defending itself. The implication, of course, is that there would be no need for defense if Israel would only go to the peace table and make the concessions demanded of it by the Palestinians. The Vatican’s recent recognition of the “State of Palestine” reflects this naïve view of the situation. The supposition is that the Palestinians only want to be left in peace, whereas there is abundant evidence that the deepest desire of Palestinian leaders is for the extermination of Israel. Have Vatican officials never seen the photos of Abbas holding up a map of Palestine that encompasses all of the territory currently known as Israel? Are they unaware that he has personally called for a Palestine that is Judenrein? Didn’t they notice that when Israel gambled on disengaging from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Gaza soon turned into a terrorist state governed by an obsession to destroy Israel?

From the Israeli point of view, the call to cooperate with the Palestinian “peace” agenda is a call to cooperate in its own demise. Whenever I hear a UN representative or a Vatican spokesman call for peace talks between Israel and Palestine, I think of that scene from Goldfinger in which James Bond is about to be sliced in two by a laser beam. “Do you expect me to talk?” he asks. “No, Mr. Bond,” replies Goldfinger, “I expect you to die.” The Vatican hasn’t yet grasped the point that the Palestinian leadership doesn’t want the Israelis to talk, it wants them to die.

By words and by actions, the Vatican continues to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This policy not only does a disservice to Jews, it also does a disservice to Catholics and other Christians. The main effect of the moral equivalence stance is to sow confusion among Catholics at a time when they need to be clear and unconfused—clear about Islam, that is. The Vatican policy toward Palestine reflects it overall stance toward the Islamic world. In other words, let’s overlook the dark side—the terrorism, the anti-Semitism, the oppression of Christians and other minorities—and let’s put the best face on the Mohammedan faith. For the sake of peace. And also for the sake of maintaining the threadbare narrative that Islam is a close cousin of Catholicism and, therefore, a religion of peace. Perhaps the ultimate expression of this faith in Islam was Pope Francis’ assertion in Evangelii Gaudium that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

How well has this policy worked? Not very. Catholics and other Christians who lived in Muslim lands and who took seriously the Catholic version of “this has nothing to do with Islam” soon found that the tiny minority of misunderstanders were legion and had murder on their minds. Many found out too late. Years of indoctrination in the myth of Islam’s pacific nature had left them unprepared for the violence. Not that the Church was the only culprit. The secular opinion-makers had been preaching the same gospel. The irony is that the Church wants Israel to adopt the same policy of make-believe about Islam that has contributed to the death and displacement of millions of Christians.

The policy requires an almost total denial of facts. In the case of the Arab-Israeli crisis it means ignoring the terrorist ties of the Palestinian government, its unity coalition with Hamas, the massive state-sponsored indoctrination of Palestinian children, and the oft-stated goal of eliminating Israel. Ironically, it also necessitates that one ignore the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Palestinian territories.

The Palestinian leaders do a good job of hijacking Christian themes and imagery in order to gull Christians into thinking that they are, indeed, brothers in Christ. Thus, Palestinians have milked the massacre-of-the-innocents meme for all its worth. They also like to claim that Jesus was the first Palestinian. Another favorite theme is that the Palestinian people are the “new Jesus” who is being crucified by the Israelis.

Many in the Catholic hierarchy seem to fall for the ruse, but the steady exodus of Christians from the Palestinian territories tells a different story. The overall population of Christians in the Palestinian areas has declined from 15 percent in 1950 to 2 percent today. After the Palestinian Authority took control over Bethlehem in 1995, the Christian population there declined by half. In the Gaza Strip, only a few hundred Christians remain. That’s because Christians in Palestine, like Christians in most Muslim-majority societies, are treated as second-class citizens—subject to rape, intimidation, and legalized theft.

Meanwhile, the Christian population of Israel continues to grow. Palestinian Christians want to live there and so do persecuted Christians in other parts of the Middle East. Despite years of propaganda to the contrary, they have come to realize that Israel is a safe haven in a world of Islamic chaos.

Do Christians who migrate to Israel know something that the Vatican doesn’t know? The facts are there for everyone to see, but not everyone sees them. Why do Catholic leaders persist in assigning moral equivalence when there is no moral equivalence? Normally, a belief in moral equivalence grows out of a relativistic outlook. But presumably we can rule that out in the case of Catholic prelates. A more likely cause of their moral neutrality is a misapplication of the principle of “judge not.” Christians today are highly conscious of the sins of Western civilization and are therefore reluctant to judge those who lie outside it—in this case, Muslims. However, the principle is meant to apply to judgments about the state of an individual’s soul, not his behavior. And it was never meant to apply to withholding judgments about ideologies and belief systems.

The reluctance to see the mote in the other’s eye can eventually slide over into willful blindness. There are numerous warnings in the New Testament about spiritual blindness and they apply to those within the Church as well as to those without. The big danger for Church leaders is not that they will be seen as judgmental in the eyes of the world, but that they will be seen as foolishly naïve in the eyes of history.

“First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday” is a well-known slogan in the Middle East. It means that after the Islamists finish with the Jews, they will come after the Christians. The fate of the Saturday people and the Sunday people is intertwined. And the fate of both is put in jeopardy when Christian leaders insist on holding on to a fantasy-based picture of Islam.

Categories: Abbas, Antisemitism, Appeasement, Christianity, Christians, Diversity, Fatah, Foreign policy, Freedom, Gaza, Human rights, Ideology, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on women, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Jerusalem, Jews, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Obama, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Peace process, Pope, Terrorism, Two state solution, West Bank
Tags: Abbas, Antisemitism, Appeasement, Christianity, Christians, DIversity, Fatah, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Gaza, human rights, Ideology, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on women, Islamism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jews, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Peace Process, Pope, Terrorism, Two state solution, West Bank

Comments: 1 Comment

The Cartoon Wars

May 8, 2015

The Cartoon Wars, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, May 7, 2015

It is most important to keep on challenging these would-be censors, so that people with Kalashnikov rifles do not make our customs and laws.
One of the false presumptions of our time is that people on the political left are motivated by good intentions even when they do bad things, while people on the political right are motivated by bad intentions even when they do good things.
When people prefer to focus on the motives of the victims rather than on the motives of the attackers, they will ignore the single most important matter: that an art exhibition, or free speech, has been targeted.
It does not matter if you are right-wing or left-wing, or American, Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French. These particularities may matter greatly and be endlessly interesting to people in the countries in question. But they matter not a jot to ISIS or their fellow-travellers. What these people are trying to do is to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws across the entire world. That is all that matters.

ISIS appears to have inspired its first terrorist attack in the United States: in Garland, Texas. This item may have slipped the attention of many people because as is so often the case today, much of the reporting and commentary has got caught up on other, supplementary issues.

The supplementary issues are first, that the attack targeted a competition set up to show images of what people thought Muhammad may have looked like. Then, there is the identity of the people who organized the exhibition and spoke at it.

1061

Bosch Fawstin (second from left), the cartoonist who won the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas this week, is presented with his prize by (from left to right) Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller. (Image source: Atlas Shrugs blog)

Before coming to this, let us just return to that main issue. Since January, the idea that ISIS-like groups can inspire people to carry out murderous attacks in Paris and Copenhagen has come to be accepted. But that this can happen in Texas, of all places, could yet have an even worse “chilling effect” on free speech than the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. No European country has the constitutional commitment to free speech of the United States. And Texas is not stuck in the moral relativism and fearful multiculturalism of most European countries.

There will be a feeling, post-Garland, that if ISIS can strike in Texas, it can strike anyplace. The entire developed world is therefore a potential site for an attack from ISIS. Although no one will put his hands up and surrender, neither will anyone be likely to draw attention to himself by saying or doing anything that might displease such homicidal censors.

The presence of strong security forces clearly helps to prevent attacks, but it is worth remembering that ISIS will use the opportunity of such “failed” attacks to come up with other ways of operating, which they will judge more likely to succeed.

What is most striking, however, is how silent many of the usual defenders of free speech have been.

Undoubtedly this is partly to do with the idea, becoming ingrained, that if you draw Mohammed or publish such images, you have, in some way, got it coming to you. This is an appalling pass to have come to, but it is in just such way that censorship and self-censorship are allowed to embed themselves.

Very few people say that they will not draw a historical figure because they are scared. But attack by attack, the feeling is growing among the majority of the media and others who have declined to publish such images, that they have failed. So to hide that shame, they tell themselves there is something provocative and even irresponsible in challenging people who would challenge the freedom speech.

One might still get the support of those who cherish free speech if one were accidentally to publish a cartoon of Mohammed, but not if you did so deliberately, and in full knowledge of the consequences. But of course, it is precisely after facing the consequences of challenging these would-be censors that it is most important to keep on challenging them, so that people with Kalashnikov rifles do not make our customs and laws.

As people come up with ever more elaborate ways to justify what they probably know in their hearts to be contemptible, it becomes harder and harder for them to change course.

Then there is the other only-occasionally-spoken-about supplementary issue, which may well be at the root of the difference between the assaults in Europe and the response to the attempted Texas assault. The January massacre at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo undoubtedly woke up a portion of the general public in the West because the victims were cartoonists and editors at a “left-wing” magazine. That is, Charlie Hebdo stood for a type of robust secular, anti-establishment type of French politics, which a portion of the left worldwide could recognize as its own.

This stands in contrast to the comparative lack of solidarity after threats to the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in the wake of the 2005 Mohammed cartoons affair. To varying degrees, Jyllands-Posten was described as a “conservative” paper. In this context, unsure whether “conservative” meant anything from “establishment” all the way to “racist,” there was often suspected to be some dark, ulterior motive for publishing cartoons of the founder of Islam.

There is, however, no escaping such smears. Plenty of people proved willing, in the wake of the Paris attack, to smear the murdered cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo as far-right-wing or racist.

The organizers at the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are not left-wing journalists but conservative activists; and because the Dutch politician Geert Wilders spoke at the opening of the exhibition, that added a layer of complexity for people who like labeling actions with political valences, rather than just seeing actions as apart from them. It seems clear, however, from the pattern of condemnations on one side and silence on the other, that a cartoonist may be worthy of defense if he is associated with a left-wing organization, but not if he is associated with a right-wing one.

Of course, this idea goes to one of the false presumptions of our time: that people on the political left are motivated by good intentions even when they do bad things, while people on the political right are motivated by bad intentions even when they do good things. So a cartoon promoted byCharlie Hebdo may be thought to be provocative in a constructive way, whereas one promoted by AFDI can only be thought if as being provocative in an unconstructive way. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, this is one of the main problems that underlies the reaction to the Texas attack.

Such a distinction is, needless to say, a colossal mistake. When people prefer to focus on the motives of the victims rather than on the motives of the attackers, they will ignore the single most important matter: that an art exhibition, or free speech, has been targeted. The rest is narcissism and slow-learning.

It does not matter if you are right wing or left wing. It does not matter if you are American, Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French, or whether you are from Texas or Copenhagen. These particularities may matter greatly and be endlessly interesting to people in the countries in question. But they matter not a jot to ISIS or their fellow-travellers. What these people are trying to do is to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws across the entire world.

That is all that matters. If we forget this or lose sight of it, not only will we lose free speech, we will lose, period.

Categories: Blasphemy, Cartoonophobia, Charlie Hedbo, Freedom, Human rights, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Sharia law
Tags: Blasphemy, Cartoonophobia, Charlie Bedbo, Freedom, human rights, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoonists are Controversial and Murderers are Moderate

May 5, 2015

Cartoonists are Controversial and Murderers are Moderate, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 5, 2015

garland1-450x330

[I]f you believe the media, cartoonists are more controversial than killers. A former Muslim sketching a cartoon of Mohammed is bigoted, but justifying attacks on Jews is moderate. Plotting to overthrow the United States and replace it with an Islamic theocracy is right up the alley of your local civil rights group, but a cartoon contest threatens the nation and all of creation by bringing down the wrath of men who spent their time at moderate and Muslim organizations which only occasionally support terrorism.

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

Controversial, intolerant and provocative. Mainstream media outlets broke out these three words to describe the “Draw the Prophet” contest, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Pamela Geller.

While the police were still checking cars for explosives and attendees waited to be released, CNN called AFDI, rather than the terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest, “intolerant.” Time dubbed the group “controversial.” The Washington Post called the contest, “provocative.”

Many media outlets relied on the expert opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a multi-million dollar mail order scam disguised as a civil rights group, which had listed AFDI as a hate group. Also listed as hate groups were a number of single author blogs, including mine, a brand of gun oil and a bar sign.

The bar sign, which hangs outside a bar seven miles outside Pittsburgh, appears to be made out of metal and plastic. It is reportedly unaware that it is a hate group and has made no plans to take over America.

The SPLC’s inability to conduct even the most elementary fact checking did not stop news networks from inviting its talking head on to suggest that AFDI got “the response that they — in a sense — they are seeking.” Neither CNN nor MSNBC were impolitic enough to mention that no AFDI supporter had used its materials to plan a killing spree, while at least one of SPLC’s supporters had done just that.

But being “controversial” and “provocative” has nothing to do with who is doing the shooting. It’s a media signal that the target shouldn’t be sympathized with. The Family Research Council, which was shot up by a killer using the SPLC’s hate map, is invariably dubbed “intolerant.” The SPLC, which targeted it, is however a “respected civil rights group” which provides maps to respected civil rights gunmen.

A contest in which Bosch Fawstin, an ex-Muslim, drew a cartoon of a genocidal warlord is “controversial” and “provocative,” while the MSA, which has invited Sheikh Khalid Yasin, who has inspired a number of terrorists, including apparently one of the Mohammed contest attackers, is a legitimate organization that is only criticized by controversial, intolerant and provocative Islamophobes.

Khalid Yasin has held such controversial and provocative views as claiming that the US created AIDS, that gays should be stoned to death and that women should be beaten. But the mosques and MSAs that he has appeared at have not been described as controversial, intolerant and provocative for inviting him.

Elton Simpson, the first gunman, attended the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix. The mosque was listed as being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood’s North American Islamic Trust front group.

The Muslim Brotherhood holds such controversial and provocative views as “waging Jihad” against American infidels, “raising a Jihadi generation that pursues death” and “destroying the Western civilization from within.” Despite these extremely provocative and intolerant views, the Muslim Brotherhood is usually described by the media as a “moderate” group.

The Brotherhood’s American arm believes in launching a “Grand Jihad” to Islamize America. Its final phase calls for “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation” in the United State.

Some might say this is a slightly more controversial activity than drawing cartoons of a dead warlord.

The Islamic Community Center of Phoenix featured an appearance by Lauren Booth, a convert to Islam employed by Iran, who has been photographed with the leader of Hamas, and holds such controversial and provocative views, as the Boston Marathon bombing being faked and attacks on Jews being justified as “a frustrated backlash.”

Some might say Booth’s views are controversial, provocative and intolerant. And that the gunman’s mosque was intolerant for inviting her. But don’t expect the media to call out terrorist intolerance.

Booth came as part of a fundraising effort for the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which funded the defense for Islamic Jihad boss Sami al-Arian and aided some of the terrorists involved in the provocative and controversial Fort Dix terror plot to “kill as many soldiers as possible.”

If the two Mohammed cartoon gunmen had survived, the Muslim Legal Fund of America might be having Lauren Booth spout Jewish conspiracies to fundraise on their behalf.

But if you believe the media, cartoonists are more controversial than killers. A former Muslim sketching a cartoon of Mohammed is bigoted, but justifying attacks on Jews is moderate. Plotting to overthrow the United States and replace it with an Islamic theocracy is right up the alley of your local civil rights group, but a cartoon contest threatens the nation and all of creation by bringing down the wrath of men who spent their time at moderate and Muslim organizations which only occasionally support terrorism.

Cartoons can be provocative, but the only people inspired to kill over them, are killers. No one took a shot at Gary “Punching Up” Trudeau, despite decades of mocking conservatives. None of the assorted arts projects that involve defiling and mocking the sacred symbols of Christianity and Judaism resulted in gunmen in body armor trying to storm a cartoon competition. And yet it keeps happening with Islam.

Satire exposes sociopaths and sociopathic ideologies. And it’s the very attack on the “controversial” and “provocative” contest that shows why exposing them is so important.

Elton Simpson had already been on the radar of the FBI. He should have been in jail, but Judge Mary H. Murguia, a Clinton appointee who has been bandied about as a possible Obama Supreme Court nominee, chose to believe a claim by his public defender that when he was taped talking about Jihad, it might have meant “an internal struggle to maintain faith,” instead of killing non-Muslims.

Simpson had said that Allah loves those who fight non-Muslims, that Jihadists go to paradise and stated, “I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… it’s time to roll.”

But that was just too ambiguous for Judge Murguia, who wrote, “It is true that the Defendant had expressed sympathy and admiration for individuals who “fight” non-Muslims as well as his belief in the establishment of Shariah law, all over the world including in Somalia. What precisely was meant by “fighting” whenever he discussed it, however, was not clear.”

“Neither was what the Defendant meant when he stated he wanted to get to the ‘battlefield’ in Somalia,” she added.

If nothing else, events like these help clarify the question of just what “fighting” non-Muslims involves, and whether it’s an internal struggle to maintain faith or an external struggle waged with assault rifles.

Satire helps expose the idiocy and absurdity of our betters, whether it’s Gary Trudeau or Judge Murguia. Every act of Islamic terror discredits them and their dishonest worldview even further. And they know it.

We cannot fight Islamic terrorism until we deal with it and we cannot deal with it as long as we are burdened by a political establishment that frantically censors any mention of its existence or its agenda.

The two gunmen did not attack the cartoon event simply because they were offended, but because they believed that their religion gave them a mandate to impose Islamic law on Americans. Until we deal with this supremacist reality, any effort to fight Islamic terrorists will be futile and will ultimately fail.

The Mohammed cartoons are so vital because they expose the theocracy at the heart of Islamic terrorism. When Muslim terrorists attack cartoonists, they’re not fighting our foreign policy; they are killing and dying to impose the foreign policy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous daughter groups, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and ISIS, on us.

The controversial and provocative cartoonists go into battle with pencils in their hands. The terrorists come with body armor and assault rifles. This clash is what real political dissent looks like.

The cartoonists believe in the controversial, intolerant and provocative idea that America should not be a theocracy. But the only people who should be provoked by that provocative idea are the Jihadists who want to impose a theocracy on America and the useful idiots lying and denying on their behalf.

Categories: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Freedom, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jihad, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law, Terrorism, Theocracy
Tags: Blasphemy, Charlie Bedbo, Freedom, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jihad, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law, Terrorism, Theocracy

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives