Posted tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Pakistan on the Mediterranean

March 28, 2016

Pakistan on the Mediterranean, Washington Free Beacon, , March 28, 2016

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan listens during a ceremony to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in Canakkale, Turkey, Friday, March 18, 2016. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday warned Europe that it, too, could fall victim to attacks by Kurdish militants following a terror attack in Ankara that killed 37 people. (Kayhan Ozer, Presidential Press Service, Pool via AP)

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan listens during a ceremony to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in Canakkale, Turkey, Friday, March 18, 2016. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday warned Europe that it, too, could fall victim to attacks by Kurdish militants following a terror attack in Ankara that killed 37 people. (Kayhan Ozer, Presidential Press Service, Pool via AP)

President Obama will welcome Erdoğan to Washington this week for a strategy meeting about countering the ISIS.

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

On March 18, European and Turkish diplomats signed off on a comprehensive deal on migrants pouring from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East through Turkey and into the European Union. Under the terms of the deal, for every illegal migrant the E.U. returns to Turkey, Turkey would send one refugee for resettlement in Europe. Additionally, Turkey and Europe agreed to re-open discussions concerning the Muslim country’s efforts to join the E.U., and Europe agreed to allow Turks visa-free travel throughout the Schengen zone.

Two days after the deal was announced, a Turk who had joined the Islamic State blew himself up among tourists on Istanbul’s Istiklal Street, one of the city’s major shopping and tourism districts. Two days after that, ISIS suicide bombers killed dozens in two separate attacks in Brussels. ISIS called what occurred in Belgium “a drop in the sea” compared with what the terrorists have in store for “nations of disbelief.”

Turkey and its president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, have used the growing threat to argue that the West must better conform its policies to Turkey’s desires. In the wake of the Brussels attacks, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu chided Europe. “Europe has no partner other than Turkey to provide its regional security,” he declared, adding a subtle threat: “They should see this reality and act accordingly.” Meanwhile President Obama will welcome Erdoğan to Washington this week for a strategy meeting about countering the ISIS.

The reality Davutoğlu deliberately ignores, however, is his own country’s role in allowing ISIS to develop and metastasize. The Turkish government is adept at pulling the wool over Western officials’ eyes. Erdoğan pays lip service in meetings with European and American officials to the importance of both democracy and the Turkish partnership with the West, for example, declaring, “Secularism is the protector of all beliefs and religions.” He speaks differently to his Turkish audience. As mayor of Istanbul, he described himself as “the imam of Istanbul” and declared, “Thank God almighty, I am a servant of Shari‘a.” He is famous for his quip, “Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.” In recent years, he has declared his goal to be to “raise a religious generation.”

This “religious generation” is flowing into the cauldron of Syria and Iraq. More than 30,000 foreign fighters from as many as 100 countries now fight with the Islamic State. The bulk of these soldiers—perhaps 90 percent—crossed into the Islamic State from Turkey. Turkish visa policy contributes to the problem. A direct correlation can be drawn between foreign fighters serving ISIS and those nationalities from which Turkish authorities require no visa or provide waivers: Several thousand more Moroccans and Tunisians, who need no visas to transit Turkey, fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq than Algerians and Libyans, who do. If Erdoğan simply required visas in advance for those under the age of 40 coming from countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan—or, for that matter, from Russia, the United Kingdom, and Australia—the flood of recruits into the Islamic State would slow to a trickle.

ISIS terrorists regularly traverse the Turkish border, not only for medical care but also for rest and relaxation. Some merchants in Istanbul openly sell ISIS propaganda and promise that proceeds from their sale will benefit the group’s fight in Syria and Iraq. Smugglers peddling contraband oil to fund ISIS rely on Turkey to bring the oil to market, paying off local and perhaps even national officials of the AKP, Turkey’s governing party, along the way.

Turkey has done more than lend passive support to Islamist radicals. In his 13 years in power, Erdoğan has transformed Turkey from a Western-leaning democracy into Pakistan-on-the-Mediterranean. There was, for example,the leak of documents from the Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT), Turkey’s intelligence service, showing Turkish support of the Nusra Front, an al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria. And, rather than give medals to the Turkish soldiers who intercepted truckloads of weaponry destined for Syrian radicals, Erdoğan ordered their arrest.

Likewise, when Turkish journalists exposed—with photographic evidence—the transfer of munitions and other supplies from the Turkish border to ISIS, Erdoğan’s response was not to applaud the media but to seize the newspaper and arrest its editors and many of its reporters.

There is also evidence that, as Kurds fighting ISIS in Kobani in 2014 began to turn the tide against the radical group, Erdoğan and Turkish intelligence officials allowed ISIS fighters to pass through Turkey and attack Kobani from across the border, a flank the town’s largely Kurdish residents assumed was secure.

From the beginning, Erdoğan has looked at the Syrian refugee crisis not as a humanitarian tragedy but an arrow in his quiver. Inside Turkey, he has offered Sunni refugees Turkish citizenship if they settle in Turkish provinces currently dominated by the Shi‘ite offshoot Alevi sect. And, whereas the world condemns ISIS “genocide” against the Yezidi, the Yezidi who sheltered in Turkey were then victimized, again, by local AKP-run municipalities who refused to provide services offered to Sunni refugees.

Allowing Turkey to choose which refugees to send to Europe and promising to eliminate visa restrictions for Turks only rewards Erdoğan for his behavior and gives him additional leverage in his dealings with the West. Nor is this the type of policy Erdoğan’s neighbors would support. Earlier this year, King Abdullah II of Jordan told Congress, “The fact that terrorists are going to Europe is part of Turkish policy and Turkey keeps on getting a slap on the hand, but they are let off the hook.” He added that, “radicalization was being manufactured in Turkey.”

Abdullah’s message fell on deaf in ears in Washington, Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. It is Erdoğan who has the initiative as he pursues the Islamicization of Turkey and neo-Ottoman imperialism. He has built a Pakistan on the Mediterranean: an incubator of terror that markets itself as the only available partner of the West, with tragic results.

Categories: Erdogan, Europe, Foreign policy, Islamic invasion, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Middle East, Obama and Islamic State, Obama and Turkey, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Assad’s troops enter Palmyra after massive Russian air blitz to smash ISIS

March 27, 2016

Assad’s troops enter Palmyra after massive Russian air blitz to smash ISIS, DEBKAfile, March 27, 2016

Forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad drive a tank during their offensive to recapture the historic city of Palmyra in this picture provided by SANA on March 24, 2016. REUTERS/SANA/Handout via Reuters ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. REUTERS IS UNABLE TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY, CONTENT, LOCATION OR DATE OF THIS IMAGE. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

Forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad drive a tank during their offensive to recapture the historic city of Palmyra in this picture provided by SANA on March 24, 2016. REUTERS/SANA/Handout via Reuters

Vladimir Putin after all took the momentous decision for Russian carpet bombing to level the Islamic State forces holding Palmyra since last May, and so clear the way for Bashar Assad’s troops and allied forces to enter the heritage city Saturday and Sunday, March 26-27 and take control of several districts. Television footage showed waves of explosions inside Palmyra and smoke rising from buildings, as Syrian tanks and armored vehicles fired from the outskirts.

But just as the Iraqi army, even with foreign assistance, never completely captured Ramadi or Baiji from Islamist forces, so too Assad’s forces can’t hope for complete control of the strategic town of Palmya. After pulling back to the east, ISIS forces will continue to harass the Syrian army and town with sporadic raids. And government forces will stay dependent on a Russian air umbrella to hang on.

The big question DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources were asking Sunday was what brought president Putin to give this groundbreaking military success to the Syrian ruler, just days after he withdrew Russian air support in southern Syria and opened the door for an Islamic State advance. He did this in an effort to break Assad’s resistance to the US-Russian deal for a political solution of the Syrian conflict by August.

Our sources offer two likely motivations:

1. Palmyra is strategically important to the Russian command because its fall to government forces opens the way to ISIS headquarters at Raqqa, 225 kilometers away.

2. Palmyra is also the gateway to Deir ez-Zour, 188 kilometers distant on Syria’s eastern border with Iraq. For the Russian military command, the importance of Deir ez-Zour outweighs that of Raqqa, because it is the key to control of the Euphrates Valley and access from Syria to Baghdad.

While these considerations bear heavily on Moscow’s strategic calculations, they have little direct impact on Assad’s overriding objective, which is to hold on to power. While the Syrian ruler may hope for acclaim for achieving a major success against ISIS, the laurel wreath belongs to Russian pilots. His forces essentially performed  a ground operation in Palmyra in Moscow’s interest and goal, which is to strengthen the Russian grip on his country.

On Saturday, DEBKAfile set forth the background for these events.

Cracks in the united US-Russian front over the Syrian ruler’s fate surfaced – even before the ink was dry on the joint announcement issued in Moscow Friday, March 25, by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, setting  August as the deadline for a political solution of the five-year Syrian conflict.

Shortly after Kerry’s departure for Brussels, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told reporters, “Washington now accepts Moscow’s argument that Assad’s future shouldn’t be open for negotiation right now.” However, taking exception to the phrase “right now,” State Department spokesman John Kirby immedieately snapped back, “Any suggestion that we have changed in any way our view of Assad’s future is false.”

Did this exchange spell another Washington-Moscow impasse on the future of the war and the Syrian ruler? Not exactly; Our military and intelligence analysts report that the two powers are in accord on the principle that Assad must go, but are maneuvering on the timeline for the war to end and the Syrian ruler’s handover of power.

The Americans want it to be sooner. The transition should start in August and result in adding opposition parties to the regime in positions of real influence.

President Barack Obama, when he conducts his farewell Gulf tour in April, would like to show Saudi Arabia and Gulf emirates that he has finally kept his word to them to evict Bashar Assad from power before he leaves the White House next January. The US would also be better placed for bringing the Syrian opposition into line for a negotiated deal.

But Putin prefers a delay because he has problems to solve first. The six-month long Russian military intervention in the Syrian conflict turned the tide of the war. The Syrian army and its Iranian and Hizballah allies were able to stabilize their positions and even score some important victories against rebel forces in central and northern Syria. Last year, Putin and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were definitely on the same page and fully coordinated.

That cordial relationship was thrown out of kilter by the Kremlin’s decision to work with the White House for bringing the disastrous Syrian war to an end and terminating the Assad era.

From November, Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s frequent visits to Moscow on liaison duty petered out.

Khamanei is adamantly opposed to Russia and the US commandeering the decision on Assad’s departure and its timetable. He is even more outraged by the way Putin has moved in on Syria and made it Russia’s home ground in the Middle East.

The rift with Tehran prompted Putin to announce on March 14 the partial pullback of his military forces from Syria. It was a threat to pull the rug that had turned the tide of the war in favor of Damascus and Tehran.

4 (1)

Reluctant to burn those boats, Moscow has been juggling its balls in the air, trying not to drop any. At first, he suspended Russian air cover for government-led battles. The Islamic State immediately seized on this opening in the south and advanced on the towns of Nawa, Sheikh Maskin and Daraa.

Moscow hoped that this setback would teach Bashar Assad to toe the Russian line.

Then, in the second part of last week, Putin ordered the Russian air force to renew its air strikes in the east in support of the Syrian army’s march from central Syria on the historic town of Palmyra. Friday and Saturday, the Syrian army and its allies were battling for control of the UNESCO World Heritage city, nearly a year after the Islamic State overran it and vandalized its historic remains.

DEBKAfile’s military sources stress that their capture of the reconstructed ancient Citadel perched on a hill over the city would have been beyond their strength without Russian air support. Finishing the job and recovering the entire city of Palmyra will depend heavily on Russian air strikes continuing to hammer the jihadist occupiers.

Putin faces a momentous decision. He has already taught Assad and Tehran a harsh lesson: with Russian air support, they win battles, but not without it, as their failure in the south has demonstrated.

Will he help Assad win Palmyra?

Crowning the Syrian dictator with such a striking victory would stiffen his resistance to American pressure for him to quit in short order. He would stand out as the only Syrian war leader capable of pushing ISIS back. But if the Russian leader decides to cut off air support in mid-battle for Palmyra, Assad and Iran will be forced to face the fact that without active Russian military support, they are in hot water.

The Syrian ruler would then have to accept his approaching end. That is the dilemma facing Putin.

Categories: Assad, Foreign policy, Iran - Syria war, Iraq war, Palmyra, Putin, Russia - Syrian war, Russian airstrikes, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

IRA, ISIS and the Fate of Great Britain

March 25, 2016

IRA, ISIS and the Fate of Great Britain, Clarion Project, JC Dash, March 25, 2016

(Here’s a video, in honor of Easter Week, which eventually ended oppressive British rule over Ireland after more than a century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHsmkpWi20I

Did I mention that I’m half Irish? — DM)

 

London-bombing-7-77/7/05 is a day etched in the collective memory of the British. (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=215746)

The first time I was invited to Belfast I have to admit I was terrified. After a lull with relatively few bombings in the 80’s the 90’s there was a resurgence of bombing campaigns. I was travelling in the wake of a double bombing in London in several other places on mainland Britain. At the time the Irish population in England was forced to live in the shadows. The Irish communities came under enormous amounts of surveillance and Irish residents were viewed with the same suspicion.

The United Kingdom was not bound by the constraints of political correctness and threats from the Irish community. The government was concerned with the safety and security of its citizens. That’s not to say Britain did not make mistakes. Many were made but Britain recognized the problems and dealt with them.

So what changed?

On July 7, 2005 a series of deadly bombings hit London. ‘Traditional terrorism’ died and radical Islam took up the terror reigns.

(This video looks at that fateful day🙂 (The video refuses to embed. You will have to click on it to see it. — DM)

There are many differences between the terrorism of the IRA and today’s radical Islamists. Let’s not fool ourselves, both are cruel and heartless with no respect for human life. But the Irish conflict itself was stalled by a peace initiative. The IRA stopped the bombing, even the splinter groups have been relatively quiet for 15 years.

Let’s put one myth to bed. Islamist extremism has no political or religious agenda. It is about world domination under a man-made system of laws perverting the religion of Islam to suit their own means.

They kill without prejudice. Men, women, children of all nationalities and all religions, even Islam, are targeted. They do not bomb to force a political process they bomb to dominate.

It is not just the terror that is forcing Britain to its knees but the hyper-successful way Islamists have penetrated the government, intelligentsia and liberal elite controlling political correctness to breed a generation of apologists. Schools, municipalities, government officials and influencers all willingly feed on their Islamist agenda.

In the wake of the attacks by ISIS in France and Belgium, Britain needs to wake up. David Cameron, the UK’s prime minister, is among the few with the guts to speak out. Britain needs to decide what is more important, protecting the people, cultural identity and the rule of law or appeasing radical Islam and just giving up.

Make no mistake, Islamist extremism is also alive and well across the Atlantic. In fact it’s a global problem.

It’s time the U.S. admitted there is a problem, joined the dots and make sure it doesn’t repeat the same mistakes as the United Kingdom.

Categories: Britain, Easter Week, Foreign policy, Irish Republican Army, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Obama Doctrine Applied

March 23, 2016

The Obama Doctrine Applied, Power Line, Scott Johnson, March 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Via Daniel Halper/Weekly Standard.

Categories: Brussels terror attack, Cuba, Foreign policy, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Obama and Islam
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

No More Hug-A-Terrorist

March 23, 2016

No More Hug-A-Terrorist, Gatestone Institute, Raheel Raza, March 23, 2016

(Please see also, Islamic Reformation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. — DM)

♦ How hard is it to understand that radical Islamist jihadis have declared war on the West? In simple English this means: they will find you and kill you wherever and whenever they can.

♦ Time and again, many of us concerned Muslims have highlighted the dangers of political Islam/Islamism, which stems from one of three sources: the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi/Salafism or Khomeinism.

♦ The West has been asleep at the wheel, waffling about how to address the issue with “sensitivity.” Calling out the truth should never be subject to political correctness.

♦ The world needs to take the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to task and challenge it about what it is doing to stem the tide of violence emanating from the Muslim world. The world needs to understand that ISIS is not trying to set up a Caliphate. OIC is the Caliphate.

The terrorist attacks at an airport and Metro station in Brussels has by now claimed at least 34 dead and 250 injured.

Shocking, sickening and appalling — but surprising? No.

How hard is it to understand that radical Islamist jihadis have declared war on the West? In simple English this means: they will find you and kill you wherever and whenever they can.

Why? Because the Islamists have pinpointed the West to be “Dar al Harb” (land of war), a concept that allows them to justify killing anyone on this land. You, me and everyone in between — from the USA across to Canada, the UK and Europe.

Just this year, there have been terrorist attacks all over the globe, including Paris, Turkey, San Bernardino, Israel, Toronto, Ivory Coast and yesterday in Belgium. Whether carried out by groups or so called “lone wolves,” these attacks are not isolated and have one thing in common.

They are all the result of a dangerous, violent and sick ideology. Time and again, many of us concerned Muslims have highlighted the dangers of political Islam/Islamism which stems from one of three sources: the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi/Salafism or Khomeinism. This ideology has been on the rise for 35 years while the West has been asleep at the wheel, waffling about how to address the issue with “sensitivity.” Calling out the truth should never be subject to political correctness.

How are we Muslims dealing with this ongoing terror in the name of our faith? Social media tells us a lot. There are the usual deniers and apologists; there is a comparison that “while we show solidarity for Brussels, we must simultaneously remember every other country of the world,” hence watering down the impact of the horror and carnage that has just taken place in Belgium and showing a rancid face of inhumanity and deflection from the real issue.

Then the victim ideology kicks in and it’s all about the fear of a backlash. I say let’s speak out, take responsibility and deal with the backlash — it will be worse if we remain silent.

Added to this are people like the repulsive British politician, George Galloway, who says Europe is to blame for what has happened. No one wants to touch the real issue.

The real issue is that this violence will continue and get much worse unless all of us stand up and acknowledge the ugly virus within us and say no to armed jihad. All of us, in once voice, need to denounce and condemn armed jihad as a seventh-century construct, not applicable in this day and age.

How have media addressed the issue? They immediately brought in “experts” to analyze the motives of the attackers to smithereens. There is nothing left to analyze. It is simple: It is a war against us. Let us stop the talking heads and take some action.

Political correctness should not trump the truth.

To bring home this point: Following an attack on two Canadian military officers in Toronto on March 14, 2016, I was invited the next day by a local TV station to comment. At first, the media did not wish to publish the words spoken by the attacker: “Allah made me do it.” The next day, the news reported that the attacker had “mental health issues.” Again, no surprise here. Mental health issues are a good “fallback.” But I said on the news that if a person has the wherewithal to find a specific military location and attack two officers, he is capable of being a terrorist.

Once again, we failed to connect the dots. The CTV News clip of my interview never made it to the internet. Are they not able to handle the truth?

1522Following a terrorist attack on two Canadian military officers in Toronto last week (left), the media initially did not wish to publish the words spoken by the attacker: “Allah made me do it.” Following yesterday’s bombings in Brussels, the media immediately brought in “experts” to analyze the motives of the attackers. There is nothing left to analyze. It is simple: It is a war against us.

Our leadership, meanwhile, has developed a philosophy of “hug-a-terrorist” and deflecting the conversation into a politically correct Kumbaya mode.

On October 22, 2014, I wrote an open letter to Canadians on my blog. In this I made some clear suggestions about the dangers we face, and solutions. The backlash was fast and furious, not only from Muslims but from bleeding-heart white liberals — those who do not help our cause by promoting the victim ideology.

So, once again we are standing where we were many years ago, but worse off because hundreds more civilians have been slaughtered in the radical Islamist war against the West.

Countering this armed jihad is our responsibility because the problem emanates from the House of Islam and the lives of our next generations are at stake here.

There are solutions. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has a membership of 57 Muslims states spread over four continents, is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations. The world needs to take the OIC to task and challenge it about what it has done or is doing to stem the tide of violence emanating from the Muslim world. The world needs to understand that ISIS is not trying to set up a Caliphate. The OIC is the Caliphate. Its members conveniently look away in face of blatant terrorism because their only focus is to dislodge Israel and condemn the West.

We cannot let the OIC speak for us. We face a simple choice: We can either speak out ourselves or wait for Mr. Trump to be elected and he will do it for us.

Raheel Raza is president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow and founding member of the Muslim Reform Movement.

Categories: Foreign policy, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Obama's America, OIC, Political correctness
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel?

March 23, 2016

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, March 23, 2016

Authorities need look no further than Angela Merkel as the prime suspect for the latest carnage in Brussels.

More than anyone, it was Merkel who opened the floodgates to the migrants — armies of men without women posing as refugees from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan found trampling throughout Europe. When they are caught misbehaving, they smirk and say, “I am here as a guest of Angela Merkel,” and they are correct and nearly untouchable.

Merkel stands by her open borders policy, the safety of her people be damned.

Over the past 12 months, more then a million of them have already crossed into Germany alone; 300,000 have been given asylum.

Of Brussels at this hour, all Western Europe leadership is guilty with Merkel sharing the largest part of the blame. These are her pets.

“Don’t go out unless you have to” is the hot new message circulating throughout Europe now that the “refugees” have arrived. You could get raped.

You could also get killed, and that’s what happened when the citizens of Brussels dared to go out Tuesday morning during rush hour. Scores were slain and wounded from yet another Islamic terror attack and people all over want to know how to make this stop.

Stop the influx. How’s that for an idea that needs no Einstein? Deport them instead. Maybe starting with Merkel, who invited the stampede.

The Saudis and the princes from the other Gulf States have it neatly figured out.

(So does Trump who wants to stop it and saw it coming as did this must-read thriller.)

Those titled Arabs don’t want that crowd within 100 miles even though they are fellow Muslims. But they do not want that type entering their borders, bringing with them their license to rape, their rivalries and tribal feuds, hell no, so why not Europe, and Europe says, sure, why not? Bring them on!

How clueless!

This is how. Only a few days ago, there they sat around a big table in Brussels, the smooth rulers of the EU, congratulating themselves on the capture of the final “mastermind” behind the November attack in Paris that killed 130. The French president was there, the Belgium prime minister was there and all the rest together expressed joy to the world that Salah Abdeslam had been caught.

Merkel sent in her gratitude for the superb police work.

At the moment they were hi-fiving the one success, 10,000 more “refugees” streamed in, plenty of them likewise “masterminds.”

Can no one do the math?

We pass the point of absurdity when “open borders” imperils us all throughout the world. There is no stopping the mad dash across continents.

Nor can we stop the madness that afflicts the world’s leaders.

Merkel and the rest of you clueless rulers of Europe, your misguided liberal sympathies and migrant leniencies are killing us.

Hence, Obama has chimed in his condolences for the pain in Brussels. “The entire world must unite,” he said. Yeah, sure, thanks. Will do.

Now back to the game, Mr. President.

Employing European wisdom, he wants to bring more of them into the United States. Thanks again.

Likewise Hillary and Trudeau. First the condolences followed by “we must resist Islamophobia” and keep the influx coming.

Hillary demands that we bring in 65,000 of them. Trudeau is ahead of her. He’s already got them in Canada.

It takes no prophet to know what’s coming for Canada and what’s next for the United States.

Don’t blame the terrorists, only. They are murderers but they know what they are doing.

The same cannot be said for the men and women who run our world.

Categories: Donald Trump, Europe, Foreign policy, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamisation, Merkel, Obama, Saudi Arabia
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cruz Hits Trump on NATO ‘Surrender’ in Wake of Brussels Attacks

March 22, 2016

Cruz Hits Trump on NATO ‘Surrender’ in Wake of Brussels Attacks, Newsmax, Sandy Fitzgerald, March 22, 2016

(At least he didn’t blame the Trump rallies for the violence in Brussels. — DM)

Cruz vs Trump(AP)

GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Tuesday that Donald Trump was engaging in a “pre-emptive surrender” to Islamic terror by calling for a “withdrawal” from NATO on the eve of the Brussels terror attacks.

On Monday, Trump told CNN that the U.S. should greatly reduce its support of NATO.

“It’s too much and frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea,” Trump said of the US-European security alliance.

Cruz said he found it “striking” that the terror attacks occurred on the day after his rival candidate Donald Trump called for reducing the U.S. role NATO.

“We see Brussels where NATO is headquartered as the subject of a radical Islamic terrorist attack,” Cruz said in a press conference from Washington D.C.

“Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that America should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Vladimir Putin a major victory, and while’s he’s at it, hand ISIS a major victory.”

Instead, said the Texas senator, NATO would be crucial in any United States effort in “utterly destroying ISIS.”

“And I would note that NATO  is ready to act in a way our president is not,” said Cruz.

“Donald Trump’s proposal to withdraw from the world, to withdraw from NATO and Europe is sadly consistent with his statement that he intends to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Cruz also said Trump’s approach was similar to Obama’s.

“We have seen for 7 years a president that cannot distinguish between our friends and enemies. A president that cannot distinguish between the nation of Israel and Islamic terrorists who seek to murder us, and it would be a mistake to elect another president who buys into the same left-wing moral relativism that equates the terrorist blowing himself you have and murdering innocent civilians to the brave soldiers and law enforcement officers risking everything to keep us safe.”

Cruz was not alone for criticizing Trump on his stand on NATO.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, appearing on Fox News Tuesday morning, said Trump’s plan for downsizing the U.S. role in NATO was dangerous as we confront the grave threat of Islamic terrorism.

Categories: 2016 elections, AIPAC, Brussels terror attack, Donald Trump, Europe, Foreign policy, Islamic jihad, Israel, NATO, Ted Cruz
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

Cuba and Obama’s ‘Axis of Evil’

March 21, 2016

Cuba and Obama’s ‘Axis of Evil’ Gatestone Institute, A.J. Caschetta, March 21, 2016

♦ Just as the Soviet Union did not subsidize Castro’s tyranny for the good cigars, so too Iran and North Korea are less interested in old weapons and luxury goods than in the one thing Cuba has always offered to America’s enemies — physical proximity. The USSR used Cuba as a forward operating base in the Cold War. Why would Iran and North Korea not do the same?

♦ Iranian and North Korean scientists have been openly cooperating on so many projects that Iran, if it is not already doing so, will likely evade IAEA inspections by testing its weapons in North Korea.

♦ A medium range missile fired from Cuba could reach most of the US. Cuba would also be a good launch point for an EMP attack on the US.

♦ Obama’s diplomatic engagement with Cuba’s octogenarian dictators will ensure that the island prison stays in business. Like Iran, Cuba has been flaunting its tyranny since Obama’s outreach, with 8,616 political arrests in 2015.

When George W. Bush used the term “axis of evil” to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union speech he was derided from all sides. Post-modernists and others among whom ideas of good and evil are quaint but obsolete, sneered that Bush was a simplistic thinker. Others, who agreed that threats to their existence might be evil, seemed less troubled by the ethics than by the accuracy of the term “axis.”

Bush, by linking these three nations, was accused of misunderstanding that members of an axis work together. As Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies, so went the argument, there was no evidence of cooperation.

In 2002 it may have been impossible to prove Iranian-North Korean cooperation, but that has changed. Since at least 2012 when the two countries signed a technological cooperation pact, Iranian and North Korean scientists have been openly cooperating on so many projects that Iran, if it is not already doing so, will likely evade IAEA inspections by testing its weapons in North Korea.

Whether through prescience or luck, Bush was correct about the Iran-North Korea connection. With Saddam out of the picture the “Axis of Evil” has become the “Duo of Evil” — not nearly the same ring. There also is evidence that the Duo is seeking to recruit a new third member to complete the axis.

Putin’s Russia, for instance, could easily be taken for a new member of the axis. Its fingerprints have been showing up in many places: the murder of Russian dissidents, the downing of passenger jets, the invasion of its neighbors. Putin’s decisions to cancel the transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran and withdrawal of troops from Syria suggest a Russia making a strategic retreat for its own best interests at the moment, whatever they may be.

China might also part of the axis. Constructing military bases on artificial islands indicates a budding expansionism. China’s reportedly growing dismay over North Korea’s antics, however, suggest a nation too concerned with its own interests to join any axis seeking to destroy the chief marketplace for its goods.

The less obvious, but more probable, recruit to the axis is Cuba, which shares with Iran and North Korea an institutional hatred for the USA and a history of autocratic rule. Robin Wright has called Cuba and Iran “melancholy twins.”

Most bitterly of all, all three countries might today be far less threatening had U.S. aid not saved them at crucial moments when their tottering regimes might have been toppled.

1519President Barack Obama shakes hands with Cuban dictator Raúl Castro during the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, on April 11, 2015. (Image source: White House/Pete Souza)

Had Jimmy Carter not pulled the regime out from under the Shah, the Iranian Revolution might never have caught on. Carter’s shameful treatment of an imperfect ally is a blight on his presidency. But when the so-called Green Revolution broke out in 2009, a newly-inaugurated President Obama did nothing to help the revolutionaries. Worse, he reached out his open hand, eventually placing billions of dollars at the mullah’s disposal just when sanctions were crippling Iran’s economy.

In 1994, North Korea was not yet a nuclear power. Its economy was almost non-existent, and an ailing Kim Il-Sung was losing the battle of world opinion after the IAEA declared it in violation of non-proliferation safeguards. Just when international opprobrium might have been leveraged against the regime, a semi-retired Jimmy Carter saved the Kims with the worst diplomatic deal the U.S. had ever made. The subsequent Clinton-Carter Agreed Framework provided Kim Jong Il (whose father died during negotiations) regular shipments of heavy fuel oil and, of all things, two light water nuclear plants. In return, Kim promised not to do what he immediately set about doing.

The now-infamous photograph of Kim Jong-Il and Madeleine Albright toasting the deal is an iconic tableau to diplomatic folly on par with Neville Chamberlain triumphantly waving a piece of paper with Hitler’s promise to behave himself, or more recently, John Kerry and Zarif shaking hands over the JCPOA.

Now Cuba is being saved just when its repressive dictatorship was finally vulnerable and fading on the vine, bereft of the welfare it enjoyed first from its Soviet patrons and then from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Obama’s diplomatic engagement with Cuba’s octogenarian dictators will ensure that the island prison stays in business. Like Iran, Cuba has been flaunting its tyranny since Obama’s outreach, with 8,616 political arrests in 2015.

Historical similarities aside, Cuba has cooperated with both Iran and North Korea. Under the Shah, Iran had no diplomatic ties with Cuba; but after 1979, Castro was one of the first nations to recognize Khomeini’s regime as the legitimate government of Iran. Since then, ties between the two have been increasing steadily. In May of 2001, Fidel Castro visited Iran, where he said “Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring American to its knees.” Visiting Cuba at a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 2006, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanked the Castros for their support of his country’s nuclear program; he visitedCuba again in 2012; by 2014 the relationship had grown even closer.

Cuban relations with North Korea are not as old nor as easily documented as those with Iran. Aside from Castro’s visit to Pyongyang in 1986 and some weapons transfers in the 1980s, there had been little to report, until recently. The Economist offers 2008 as the year that cooperation between Cuba and North Korea began increasing. In 2013, the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang was interdicted in Panama after leaving Cuba laden with Soviet weaponry hidden under mountains of sugar. There were MiG jets, spare MiG engines, missile parts, radar components, and other weaponry. There were reports that the ship had visited Cuba several times before being caught with the weapons. What else might have been smuggled out of Cuba is far less worrisome than what might have been smuggled into Cuba.

A Cuban role in the axis would be more than ideological. Just as the USSR did not subsidize Castro’s tyranny for the good cigars, so too Iran and North Korea are less interested in old weapons and luxury goods than in the one thing Cuba has always offered to America’s enemies — physical proximity. The USSR used Cuba as a forward operating base in the Cold War. Why would Iran and North Korea not do the same?

Most analysts are focused on North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but a medium-range missile fired from Cuba could reach most of the US. Cuba would also be a good launch point for an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the US.

Just days before North Korea’s purported hydrogen bomb test, the State Department reached out to Kim Jong Un with another lifeline offer. And on March 17, the US removed Cuba from the list of countries deemed to have insufficient port security.

In spite of repeated Iranian violations of the JCPOA, there is no sign that the so-called “snapback sanctions” are even a topic of discussion at the White House. Last week, Russia used its veto at the UN Security Council to prevent any sanctions on Iran.

The biggest difference between the Bush and Obama approach to the “axis of evil” is that Bush was opposed to it; Obama appears infatuated.

Categories: Axis of evil, Cuba, Foreign policy, Iran, North Korea, Obama, Rogue nations
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Bernie Sanders Bows to Anti-Jewish Bigots, Skips AIPAC

March 20, 2016

Bernie Sanders Bows to Anti-Jewish Bigots, Skips AIPAC, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, March 19, 2016

bernie_sanders_sleeps

Bernie Sanders has dodged his Jewish ethnic roots throughout the campaign. He avoided campaigning in Jewish areas in Florida. He has a history of hostility to Israel. So it’s not surprising that he decided to blow off the AIPAC conference.

AIPAC conferences are lightly pro-Israel consensus events. AIPAC is willing to provide cover for just about any politician willing to show up. Actual pro-Israel views are not required. Hillary Clinton and Trump will be there. Obama has been there. Showing up at an AIPAC conference is basically a politician saying that he or she is willing to extend an olive branch to Jews. However thin.

Bernie Sanders has once again chosen to pander to the anti-Semitic radical left. The petition calling for him to skip AIPAC was authored by the son of Hillary Clinton’s pet consigliere, Max Blumenthal, who has called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. Hillary Clinton is a fan of Blumenthal’s hateful views on Israel. Views which were cited by the Kansas City Community Center gunman.

Sanders could have stood up to the anti-Semites. He could have stood up to bigots like Roger Waters and Max Blumenthal. Instead he chose to bow out with an excuse.

But then again Bernie has nothing to say. After San Bernardino, he whined loudly about the shift to foreign policy for that debate. When asked about lone wolf attackers, he began ranting about Wall Street. He would have nothing to say at the event anyway. His views on Israel come down to vocal support for Obama’s nuclear Iran and his past opposition to arming Israel.

Categories: AIPAC, Antisemitism, Foreign policy, Israel, Sanders
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Rabbis Boycotting Trump At AIPAC Aren’t Being Fair Or Following Jewish Law

March 20, 2016

Rabbis Boycotting Trump At AIPAC Aren’t Being Fair Or Following Jewish Law, The Jewish Press, Jeff Dunetz, March 20, 2016

Trump-Law

While these Rabbis are walking out on Donald Trump, there was never a boycott of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, Barack Obama, nor is there a plan to boycott Hillary Clinton despite her anti-Israel activism. Ms. Clinton is on the schedule to address AIPAC also.

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

{Originally posted to the author’s website, The Lid}

He who answers a word before he understands-it is foolishness for him and an embarrassment-  Mishlei (Proverbs) Chapter 18: Verse 13

A Reform Rabbi from Florida by the name Jeffrey Salkin (of Temple Solel in Hollywood) is organizing a boycott of Donald Trump’s speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference Monday, and it’s not because of Trump’s statement about being neutral in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.

But, for many of the rabbis who will be attending AIPAC, Trump’s appearance poses political, moral, and even spiritual quandaries.

It is quite simple. Trump’s hateful rhetoric is abhorrent to a great many rabbis, for a variety of reasons. In particular, the Reform movement has eloquently spoken out on Trump.

(…) We have been urging rabbis to simply not attend the Trump speech — to let our absence be felt and noted.

Yes, AIPAC must be hospitable to Trump, but that does not mean that AIPAC participants are hospitable to the candidate’s ideas and candidacy.

While I understand the boycotting Rabbis distaste of Mr. Trump (just look at the hateful comments I get from Trump fans) and plan to vote against him in the New York State primary, the boycotters are not being fair to Donald Trump, nor are they observing Jewish law which demands people listen to all sides before making a judgment.

According to the Washington Post, “Those who have signed on so far primarily represent the Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism.” For those unfamiliar with the differences between Jewish movements, both the Reform and Conservative (where I worship) movements are very progressive. Sometimes putting their political beliefs in front of the needs of the Jewish people.  Or as I said when the leadership of the Conservative movement met with Barack Obama in the summer of 2012 and gave him an implied endorsement, they worship the golden calf of big government. Sometimes when hearing a liberal skewed sermon from the pulpit makes me feel very unwelcome at my own Shul.

Not Being Fair To Trump:

Why are they holding Donald Trump to a different standard than President Obama or Hillary Clinton?  During his seven plus years as president, Barack Obama has shown himself to be anti-Israel and even worse, anti-Semitic. For example during the push for the Iran deal the president had a phone call with “Jewish Leaders.”  In the 20-minute phone call Obama said over and over that opponents of the Iran deal come from the same “array of forces that got us into the Iraq war,” he said a “bunch of billionaires who happily finance super PACs” are “putting the squeeze on members of Congress.”

The message was clear to the Jewish participants, William Daroff Senior Vice President for Public Policy & Director of the Washington office of the very liberal, Jewish Federations of North America tweeted during the meeting “Jews are leading effort to kill #Irandeal. ‘Same people opposing the deal led us into Iraq war,’” and followed with “Canard: Jews got us into Iraq War.”

When Lee Rosenberg of AIPAC questioned the president’s statement comparing people who object to the Iran deal to those who supported the invasion of Iraq he pointed out that many anti-Semites falsely claim the Jews pushed Bush into invading Iraq. Obama explained that Netanyahu supported the Iraq invasion (true). But Bibi wasn’t the premier at the time he was a private citizen. The prime minister Ariel Sharon strongly urged Bush not to invade Iraq, arguing correctly that if Saddam were removed, “Iran, a far more dangerous player, will be rid of its principal enemy and free to pursue its ambitions of regional hegemony.”

If one looks at Hillary Clinton’s public history one finds a lifetime of anti-Israel positions. But wait some might say, Hillary was a big supporter of Israel when she was in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, she was. With the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009– except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has never been pro-Israel. And when she held the position of Secretary of State, she helped Barack Obama craft his anti-Israel positions.

While these Rabbis are walking out on Donald Trump, there was never a boycott of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, Barack Obama, nor is there a plan to boycott Hillary Clinton despite her anti-Israel activism. Ms. Clinton is on the schedule to address AIPAC also.

Not Following Jewish Teachings:

There is an old Yiddish expression, “It’s ‘shanda fur die goy.” It means making the Jews look stupid in front of the Gentiles. And in this case by not following Jewish teachings and not listening to Trump these Rabbis are embarrassing the Jewish people.

The first word of one of the holy Jewish prayers is Sh’ma, it means listen. Listening to people before judging them is an important Jewish teaching. Because of their political leanings one could reasonably suspect that these Rabbis have only seen the snippets of Trump speeches broadcast or printed by the mainstream media. If they haven looked at his entire speech, or all his speeches they aren’t listening. By boycotting him at AIPAC they are judging him by not giving him the opportunity to explain himself.

The verse from Proverbs posted above, “He who answers a word before he understands-it is foolishness for him and an embarrassment,” is trying to teach us to listen and understand someone before making a judgment.  Pirkei Avot 2:5 reads, “Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place.” As long as you have not reached his place, i.e. have a clear picture of his complete situation, and look at the broader picture you must give him the benefit of the doubt. Pirkei Avot is a book of the ethical teachings and maxims of the Rabbis written during the first two centuries CE.

Just like King Solomon (who wrote Proverbs), the ancient Rabbis taught us to understand someone before they judge that person.

In the book of D’varim (Deuteronomy) Chapter 1, Verse 16 Moses instructs the Jewish people in a similar way to Solomon and the ancient Rabbis, Judges have to hear all sides before they judge:

And I charged your judges at that time, saying: ‘Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteouslybetween a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

There again in that verse is the Hebrew word שָׁמֹעַ: sh’ma, which means listen. We must listen before judge

The first two examples above were written by man, King Solomon and the ancient Rabbis. On the other hand Jews believe that the entire Torah was written by God.  Therefore that verse in D’varim means the omnipotent one, who created the heaven and the earth, who teaches us right from wrong and gives each one of us the free will to decide our path wants us to listen before we judge.

I’m not suggesting that the Rabbis should support Trump (I don’t) or even vote Republican, what I am suggesting is that great human minds as well the word of God tells them they should sit and listen to Donald Trump, the same way they sat and listened to the anti-Semitic Barack Obama when he spoke to AIPAC, and like the will sit and listen to the anti-Israel Hillary Clinton when she addresses the very same AIPAC conference.

With the election less than eight months away they shouldn’t be divisive rather they should listen to all sides, listen to their hearts and pray. Perhaps with the prayer below:

Lord who grants salvation to kings and dominion to rulers, Whose kingdom is a kingdom spanning the entire universe and all eternities; Who places a road in the sea and a path in the mighty waters – may you bless the President, the Vice President, and all the constituted officers of government of this land. May they execute their responsibilities with intelligence, honor, compassion and love for the constitution wonderfully crafted by our founding fathers. May you grant the people of the United States the wisdom to select a leader who is wise and fair, and who will never make a decision without considering your teachings. May you always bless these United States and provide our leaders with the comprehension of your role in making this republic the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Categories: 2016 elections, AIPAC, Antisemitism, Donald Trump, Donald Trump and Israel, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Israel, Obama and Israel, Obama and Jews
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »