ISIS-terreur geworteld in islamitische cultuur
Leon de Winter op 30 juni, 2014 – 10:14
via ISIS-terreur geworteld in islamitische cultuur | www.dagelijksestandaard.nl.

ISIS-terreur geworteld in islamitische cultuur
Leon de Winter op 30 juni, 2014 – 10:14
via ISIS-terreur geworteld in islamitische cultuur | www.dagelijksestandaard.nl.

The Islamist Plague
By Rachel Ehrenfeld
Monday, June 30th, 2014 @ 3:56AM
via The Islamist Plague.

Many Western commentators have adopted the narrative that al Qaeda and its ilk are the exception to the “religion of peace” — Islam.
However, the rise of “political Islam,” the brainchild of the Muslim Brotherhood, is more akin to a highly infectious disease. No vaccine is available; its spread can only be halted by identifying and eliminating the sources of infection. Yet, despite the mortal danger posed by the increasingly violent global jihadist movement, willful blindness persists in the United States and the West.
Once the Soviet Union imploded and Islamist fundamentalism exploded, Muhammad replaced Marx and Lenin, and radical Islam replaced the socialist-nationalist doctrines of the Arab revolutionaries. The collapse of the Soviet Union served as the catalyst for an alliance between radical Sunni and Shiite movements that helped to revive Islamist fundamentalism. The spread of the Islamist ideology was paid for by the oil-rich Arab/Muslim states, which also used their money to buy Western “opinion makers,” including businessmen, politicians, the media, and academics.
New communication technologies allowed the increasingly vitriolic Islamist rhetoric to spread instantaneously. Instead of taking measures to stop the instructive incitement for murder, the West sank further into appeasement, thus encouraging the spread of the jihadist agenda.
While the bloody attacks of ISIS and Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria are portrayed as a Sunni vs. Shiite struggle, the role of Ayatollah Khomeini, as the leader of the “Islamic Revolution,” should not be forgotten.
After successfully taking over Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini began calling for the unification of Muslims throughout the world, and for exporting his Muslim Revolution to wherever Muslims live so that Muslim domination could be achieved. “We are at war against Infidels,” the Ayatollah told a large group of Pakistani military officers on a pilgrimage to Qom in January 1980. “Take this message with you … I ask all Muslims [emphasis added] … to join the Holy War. There are many enemies to be killed or destroyed. Jihad must triumph.” He stressed that the “Iranian Experiment” should be followed, and that the realization of the true Islamic State should be carried out forcibly and without compromise.
These plans for Islamic unification were accelerated by the Gulf War. The war helped the leaders of Islamist groups throughout the globe to enforce their vision that jihad, holy war, is the only formula for protecting Islam from extinction by the West — led by the U.S. This opinion was and is repeatedly voiced by every Islamist leader. “Bush and Thatcher have revived in the Muslims the spirit of Jihad and martyrdom,” wrote the Palestinian leader of the Islamic Jihad, Sheikh As’ad Bayyud al-Tamimi. He promised that all Muslims “will fight a comprehensive war and ruthlessly transfer the battle to the heart of America and Europe.” Despite the advancement of the ISIS, many in the West continue to dismiss such statements as pure rhetoric. Instead, they are hanging on to statements, made by Muslim and Arab leaders and politicians, that ISIS and the other jihadists are aberrations that should be eliminated.
Yet, the U.S. and other Western countries are trying, again, to negotiate, i.e., submit to demands of their mortal enemies, supposedly to avoid further escalation, often accepting statements the like of which were made by Egyptian Sunni theologian Mahmud Shaltut (1893-1963), in his al-Qur’an wal-Qitāl:
“Muhammad revealed a book [the Quran] containing the principles of happiness. It commands to judge by reason, it propagate science and knowledge, it gives clear rules, it proclaims mercy, it urges to do good, it preaches peace, it gives firm principles concerning politics and society, it fights injustice and corruption.”
He also declared, “The Islamic community is commanded to do only what is good and are forbidden to do what is reprehensible and evil. The Islamic mission is clear and evident, easy and uncomplicated. It is digestible and intelligible for any mind. It is a call of natural reason, and therefore not alien to human intellect. This is the mission of Muhammad to humanity.”
While Shaltut’s argument that “it is the interest of humanity to gather enthusiastically under Islamic rule,” has not been accepted, yet, the U.S. efforts to ignore the Islamic plague and its sources, only help to spread it.
The U.S., the U.K. and Canada in Jihad Denial
June 27, 2014 by Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, is now available.
via The U.S., the U.K. and Canada in Jihad Denial | FrontPage Magazine.

The denial of the reality of jihad is thicker than ever, even as jihadis advance around the world. And it endangers us all.
Former CIA officer John Maguire revealed this week that the CIA was blindsided by the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which now controls so much of Syria and Iraq and has designs on a great deal more territory. Maguire attributed the CIA’s underestimating of ISIL’s threat to The Company’s reduced presence in Iraq: “This is a glaring example of the erosion of our street craft and our tradecraft and our capability to operate in a hard place. The U.S. taxpayer is not getting their money’s worth.”
But that isn’t the whole story. Another reason why the CIA was completely surprised by ISIL’s advance was because the Obama Administration has so thoroughly deemphasized the jihad threat, and loudly and repeatedly proclaimed that al Qaeda was the only jihad group – and was, for its part, “on the ropes.” ISIL, an offshoot of al Qaeda in a country where Obama was in a hurry to declare victory and get out was unlikely to be the focus of sustained or serious analysis.
The willful ignorance is all-pervasive. It is a fundamental dogma of our age that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Western countries are enthusiastic democratic pluralists who reject and abhor not only jihad terrorism, but the elements of Sharia that are at variance with otherwise universally held principles of human rights. This dogma keeps running up against the buzz-saw of reality, but that never seems to make a difference to authorities.
And so it was this week that the UK’s Daily Mail noted that the Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner, Cressida Dick, said of Britain’s Muslim communities that “there were many cases where ‘warning signs’ about extremists were not brought to the attention of authorities. She also indicated some Muslims were too accepting of radical views, saying it was the police’s ‘greatest challenge’ to make them ‘wholly hostile to violent extremism.’”
How could this be? After all, a core assumption of British intelligence and law enforcement officials is that Muslim communities on the Sceptered Isle unambiguously oppose “violent extremism,” except, of course, for that pesky and ever-present tiny minority of extremists. So why were Muslims sometimes not bringing potential jihadis to the attention of authorities? Of course the obvious reason for this, and for why some Muslims in Britain are “too accepting of radical views,” is because they agree with those “radical views” and consider them to be authentic Islam. But that prospect is so horrifying in its implications that British officials do not dare face it.
Indeed, it is virtually universally accepted that Islam is inherently peaceful, and that only the extremists who misunderstand it (and vicious Islamophobes) think otherwise. So it was that at the University of Calgary, university officials ignored a professor’s warnings about potential jihadists on campus – after all, such a suggestion is “Islamophobic,” is it not?
A Muslim from Calgary, Farah Mohamed Shirdon, is in Iraq waging jihad with ISIL, and a former University of Calgary professor, Aaron Hughes, is saying that he tried to warn university officials that something like this was in the offing.
Hughes said: “I was very much bothered by the conservative nature of the Muslim student body. I was definitely aware of the potential for radicalization on campus. That is another venue in which potential radicalization could occur, so not just at mosques, but also on campus.” However, “I had been mentioning the conservative nature of these students and the university; they just weren’t interested in it.”
These “conservative” students annoyed Hughes by refusing to accept his understanding of Islam: “They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.” Or maybe they did, but Hughes, assured of the fact that Islam was a Religion of Peace, was certain that they were actually ignorant of their own religion, no matter how dedicated to it they were.
University officials, in any case, disregarded Hughes’s warnings. Jihadis on campus? Inconceivable! Islam is a Religion of Peace!
Even terrorism may be peaceful nowadays. Mohamed Hassan Hersi, a Muslim in Toronto who has been convicted of trying to join the jihad terror group al Shabaab, was only engaged, according to his lawyer, in “non-violent terrorism.”
“Non-violent terrorism”? The phrase is as stupid and devoid of content as another popular term these days, “moderate Islamist.”
The world is in flames because of Islamic jihad. Will those flames finally burn away the all-blanketing fog of disinformation, misinformation, and willful ignorance concerning the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat? Perhaps. But there is no telling how much else will be burned away along with it.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
GMTEU signs pacts with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova
27 June 2014 Last updated at 10:23
via BBC News – EU signs pacts with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova have signed partnership agreements with the European Union, in a move strongly opposed by Russia.
The pact – which would bind the three countries more closely to the West both economically and politically – is at the heart of the crisis in Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said making Ukraine choose between Russia and the EU would split it in two.
A ceasefire with pro-Russian rebels in east Ukraine is due to end on Friday.
Mr Putin called for a long-term ceasefire to allow talks between the government and separatists.
Meanwhile the United Nations refugee agency said there had been a sharp rise in the numbers of displaced people in eastern Ukraine in the past week, with 16,400 people fleeing the area.
The total number internally displaced has reached 54,400, while a further 110,000 people left Ukraine for Russia this year.
line
Analysis: Steve Rosenberg, BBC News Moscow
There is a general sense of irritation or perhaps even anger here that Moscow has failed to convince countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia not to sign this historic free trade deal today with the EU.
Moscow has economic concerns about these deals – it is worried that the Russian market could be flooded by cheap goods from the EU that would hit Russian producers.
More pressing for Moscow are the geopolitical concerns here – the whole idea of former Soviet states, countries that Moscow still views as being within its sphere of influence, drifting towards Europe and one day possibly becoming part of the EU – that really grates with Moscow, particularly in the case of Ukraine.
There’s a lot of concern about what could happen in eastern Ukraine – the ceasefire announced a few days ago by Mr Poroshenko, and the ceasefire announced by armed separatist rebels, is due to expire today. It’s unclear how things are going to develop later.
John Boehner to Sue Obama Over Abuse of Executive Powers
via John Boehner to Sue Obama Over Abuse of Executive Powers.
The House will vote next month on legislation authorizing a campaign-season lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of failing to carry out the laws passed by Congress, Speaker John Boehner announced on Wednesday.
In a memo distributed to House members, Boehner accused Obama of “aggressive unilateralism” and said if left unchecked, it would give the president “king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest dismissed any suggestion that the president has failed to act within the law in issuing executive orders or taking other actions. “We feel completely confident that the president was operating within his authority as the president of the United States to take these steps on behalf of the American people,” he told reporters.
Whatever the outcome of the suit in the courts, Boehner’s announcement guarantees creation of yet another political struggle between Republicans and Obama and his Democratic allies in a campaign already full of them.
“On matters ranging from healthcare and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around” on the public and Congress, the speaker wrote. He accused him of “ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others and at times, creating laws of his own.”
At a news conference, Boehner strongly brushed aside a question of whether impeachment proceedings could result from the suit.
In his memo, he stopped short of accusing the president of violating his oath of office. Instead, he said Obama was “straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day.”
Other Republicans have been less restrained. Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania said recently the House probably has the votes to impeach Obama, although he said he wasn’t calling for it. One former tea party-backed lawmaker, ex-Rep. Allen West of Florida, has called for the House to vote to remove the president from office.
Boehner also rejected a suggestion that the suit was a political move designed to give traditional Republican voters an added impetus for going to the polls this fall when control of Congress will be at stake.
But Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who chairs the Democratic campaign committee, said Boehner planned a politically motivated lawsuit,” and predicted the voters would punish Republicans for it.
He accused the speaker of a “reprehensible waste of taxpayers’ money and a desperate political stunt meant to gin up the Republican base at a time when House Republicans are historically unpopular.”
Disputes about the balance of power between the executive branch and the Congress are as old as the Constitution under a system in which lawmakers pass laws and the president carries them out.
Boehner said the House “must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake.”
Recent Comments