Posted tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Acting on secret Obama-Putin Syria deal, Moscow’s air strikes focus first on rebels, next on ISIS

November 18, 2015

Acting on secret Obama-Putin Syria deal, Moscow’s air strikes focus first on rebels, next on ISIS, DEBKAfile, November 18, 2015

Putin50

As a result of the deal between the two presidents, 75 percent of Russian attacks in Syria Tuesday were aimed against various rebel groups (around Hama and Aleppo), and only 25 percent against ISIS (at its Raqqa headquarters) and Al-Nusra Front targets.

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

The secret deal for a political solution for the Syria conflict reached by Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Antalya over the weekend has radically changed and intensified Russia’s air strike tactics in the last 24 hours.

For the first time since the intensified Russian military intervention in the Syrian civil war in the last week of September, Russian air force planes took off Tuesday, Nov. 17 for attacks on Syrian rebel and ISIS targets, from a home base, the Morozovsk airbase in the southern Rostov district. Until now, the Russian bombers had taken off from Hmeymim airbase near Latakia.

Also for the first time, they lofted Tupolev Tu-160 and Tupolev Tu-95 bombers. The Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack is a long-range strategic bomber and the biggest combat aircraft in the world, while the Tu-95 Bear is a huge strategic bomber with four turboprop-powered engines that is also used to launch missiles.

DEBKAfile’s military sources note that that the entry of these heavy bombers marks an increase in the frequency of the attacks and in the firepower used by Russia against the rebels and ISIS. Together with the firing of advanced Russian Kalibr cruise missiles at targets in Syria – also for the first time on Tuesday – these changes substantially escalate the Russian military effort in Syria.

Western sources take these changes to mean that Putin is driving hell-bent to settle accounts with the Islamic State after the downing of the Russian plane over Sinai on Oct. 31, and that he will coordinate this effort with French President Francois Hollande, who is due in Moscow in the coming days.

However, DEBKAfile reports that the new, stepped up Russian aerial offensive is fact bringing forward certain – not necessarily jihadist – Syrian rebel groups as Moscow’s priority targets, with ISIS only in second place.

In their 30-minute conversation on Sunday, Nov. 15, our sources reveal, Obama secretly accepted most points of Putin’s plan for a political resolution of the Syrian conflict (first revealed by DEBKA Weekly earlier this month), with the exception of the point relating to Bashar Assad’s future.

The White House and the Kremlin consequently announced a joint decision on a cease-fire in Syria to be followed by UN-mediated negotiations between the rebels and the Assad regime.

The first point of the Russian blueprint called for intensified air strikes by the US and Russia against rebel groups refusing to enter into these negotiations in order to force them to toe the line.

As a result of the deal between the two presidents, 75 percent of Russian attacks in Syria Tuesday were aimed against various rebel groups (around Hama and Aleppo), and only 25 percent against ISIS (at its Raqqa headquarters) and Al-Nusra Front targets.

Obama agreed to Russian expanding its air campaign to this end for at least three weeks. It was also decided that Russia would beef it up with another 25 heavy bombers and addition warplanes.

Meanwhile, also on Tuesday, Russia released the findings of its investigation into the downing of a Russian airliner on October 31 in the Sinai Peninsula that caused the deaths of all 224 passengers and crew.

Putin and the heads of the Russian intelligence community have concluded that the destruction of Metrojet Flight 9268 soon after takeoff from Sharm El Sheikh was the result of a bomb planted on board by terrorists. Egypt quickly rejected the conclusion, claiming there was no proof of it whatsoever. But the conclusion led Putin to offer an unprecedented $50 million reward for information leading to the capture of those who planted the bomb.

According to our counterterrorism sources, Russian intelligence chiefs are convinced that certain top Egyptian military and security service officers know exactly who was responsible. The enormous reward was offered to draw them out and tempt them to break ranks with Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh El-Sisi’s dogged resistance to the charges of a terrorist hand at work behind the Russian air disaster. After all, 50 million dollars must be hard to resist.

Categories: Foreign policy, Islamic State, Obama and Syria, Putin, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. ‘discriminates’ against Christian refugees, accepts 96% Muslims, 3% Christians

November 17, 2015

U.S. ‘discriminates’ against Christian refugees, accepts 96% Muslims, 3% Christians, Washington Times,  Valerie Richardson, November 17, 2015

Obama and FrancisPresident Obama reacts as he meets with Pope Francis during their exchange of gifts at the Vatican on March 27, 2014. (Associated Press) more >

Less than 3 percent of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far are Christian and 96 percent are Muslim, the result of a referral system that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton says “unintentionally discriminates” against Christians.

State Department figures released Monday showed that the current system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim, the Christian News Service reported.

Mr. Cotton and Sen. John Boozman, both Arkansas Republicans, called Monday for a moratorium on resettlements, a White House report on vetting procedures, and a re-evaluation of the refugee-referral process.

“[T]he United States’ reliance on the United Nations for referrals of Syrian refugees should also be re-evaluated,” said Mr. Cotton in a statement. “That reliance unintentionally discriminates against Syrian Christians and other religious minorities who are reluctant to register as refugees with the United Nations for fear of political and sectarian retribution.”

The current system relies on referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Syria’s population in 2011 was 90 percent Muslim and 10 percent Christian, CNS said.

At a news conference Monday in Turkey, President Obama described as “shameful” the idea of giving religious preferences to refugees, apparently referring to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s suggestion that the United States should accept Christian refugees while Muslim refugees are sent to majority-Muslim countries.

“That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” Mr. Obama said.

Figures from the State Department Refugee Processing Center updated Monday showed that 96 percent of the Syrian refugees accepted so far are Muslim, while less than 3 percent are Christian. The other 33 identified as belonging to smaller religious faiths or said they had no religion.

Ben Rhodes, Obama deputy national security adviser, said Sunday that the White House still plans to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees despite last week’s deadly terrorist attack on Paris. Republicans have countered that it’s all but impossible to conduct background checks on those seeking refuge.

Mr. Cotton and Mr. Boozman called Monday for a temporary moratorium on resettlements and “a requirement that the President certify the integrity of the security vetting process as a condition of lifting the moratorium.”

“The American people have long demonstrated unmatched compassion for the world’s persecuted and endangered. But when bringing refugees to our shores, the U.S. government must put the security of Arkansans and all Americans first,” Mr. Cotton said. “No terrorist should be able to take advantage of the refugee process to threaten the United States.”

 

Categories: Asylum seekers, Christians, Foreign policy, Human rights, Obama and Christians, Obama and Muslims, Religion, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

The French connection

November 17, 2015

The French connection, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, November 17, 2015

When Islamist leaders condemned Friday night’s Paris attacks, which left more than 132 people dead and hundreds of others critically wounded, you just had to laugh through your tears.

Terror masters in Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Palestinian Authority actually had the gall to talk as if they themselves are not responsible for the ongoing murder of innocent people.

But hypocrisy, mendacity and lying as a matter of course are not the only reasons for their public expressions of solidarity with France during this frightful hour. In fact, what really bothers them is the fear that a rival group may be beating them at their own game. And hell hath no fury like a scorned, power-hungry radical Muslim with hegemonic aims and weapons with which to achieve them.

Such monsters, some in suits and ties to throw you off, are able to get away with playing the West for fools — particularly when the so-called leader of the free world keeps kowtowing to them, while espousing denial as a policy. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the bloodbath in Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama made a statement that put a smug smile on the faces of jihadists everywhere.

In the first place, he called the carnage “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” This is an amazing assertion, since I don’t even share Obama’s values, let alone those of a great portion of “humanity” inside and out of Washington, D.C. You know, like the multimillions of anti-Semites, Christian-killers, women-subjugators and child-abusers who are trying to win the war over the world’s character and soul.

Secondly, the president said he didn’t “want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this.”

Right, responded radical Muslims in the privacy of their bunkers and bomb factories, for all Obama knew, the shootings and explosions in a theater, restaurants and at a soccer stadium could have been carried out by disgruntled Buddhists.

By the time he arrived in Antalya to attend the G-20 economic summit less than 48 hours later, even the U.S. president could no longer plead ignorance. So he had to address the issue of Islamic State tentacles spreading every which way, in spite of his having announced a few days earlier that its threat had been “contained.”

Even members of the left-leaning media were challenging his claim that the way he’s been fighting the al-Qaida spin-off is still the right one. And this, while sidling up to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose recent landslide re-election was a dark day for people with those ostensibly “universal” values Obama had mentioned.

The good news here is also the bad.

Effectively combating Islamic State is actually irrelevant in the wider context, as counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka has been trying to explain for years.

That Friday night’s multiple attacks in Paris were carried out by terrorists affiliated with ISIS is “wholly irrelevant,” Gorka — national security editor at Breitbart and military affairs fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — told me this weekend. “All members of the global jihadist movement, be they Sunni or Shia, Arab, Persian or converts, are driven by the same desire: the need to kill the kuffar [infidels] for the glory of Allah. All attacks, be they 9/11, 7/7, Mumbai, Amman, Paris or the recent stabbings in Israel, are tied together by the connective tissue of jihadist ideology.”

He stressed, “It is time for us to realize — and demand of our leaders that they act accordingly — that we face an existential threat, which, over the long term, could be as dangerous as Hitler’s Third Reich. This is a war between good and evil. And only one side will prevail in the end.”

I still harbor hope that the former will emerge victorious. But this cannot happen unless certain conditions are met. These include: getting the nuclear-deal-obsessive Democrats out of the White House; making Europe understand that it should be labeling undesirable Islamists, not Israeli products; and raising children in the West to grasp that the blessed ability to live in a free society means being prepared to die defending it against its detractors and destroyers.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran, Iran and terror, Iranian proxies, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic State, Obama's affinity for Iran, Palestinian Authority, Paris Muslim attack, Syria, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The West and Islam

November 17, 2015

The West and Islam, Washington Times, Robert W. Merry, November 16, 2015

West and IslamIllustration on the clash of civilizations by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times

France’s 4.7 million Muslims now constitute about 7.5 percent of the country’s population, and that number is projected to hit nearly 7 million by 2030. Generally, these people have not assimilated well into French society and hence constitute a mass of political and cultural anger that can only intensify in coming years.

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

As the full magnitude of Friday’s Paris carnage became known, President Obama spoke to America people and the world about the horrific bloodshed in that great Western city. The president said this was not an attack simply on Paris or the French people. “It was an attack,” he said, “on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”

This is dangerously wrongheaded. History is not about all of humanity struggling to preserve and protect universal values against benighted peoples here and there who operate outside the confines of those shared values. History is about distinct civilizations and cultures that struggle to define themselves and maintain their identities in the face of ongoing threats and challenges from other civilizations and cultures.

Compare the president’s gauzy notion to what the late Samuel P. Huntington, probably the greatest political scientist of his generation, had to say about the relationship between the West and Islam. “Some Westerners,” wrote Huntington, ” have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.”

This is not to say, of course, that all or even most Muslims are Islamist extremists or that Western values don’t inspire many within that civilization. But the Islamist fervor we see bubbling up within Middle Eastern Islam today emanates directly from the doctrines and history of Islam. Most Muslims of the Levant know in their hearts, in a way that most Westerners don’t recognize, that Islam and the West have been locked in a civilizational struggle for centuries — reflected in the Moors’ conquest of Spain and incursion into France in the 8th century; the centuries-long Spanish struggle to push the Moors south and finally expel them entirely from Iberia; the wars of the Crusades, inexplicable as anything but a civilizational clash; the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and slow push up the Danube to Vienna; the two Ottoman sieges at Vienna; the long effort to push the decaying Ottoman forces back toward Istanbul (a highly civilized seat of Christianity before it fell to Islam in 1453); the European takeover of large segments of the Islamic Middle East after World War I; and the eventual pushback by angry and frustrated Muslims bent on protecting their civilization through whatever means they can devise.

That’s a lot of civilizational clash, and it belies the notion that the Paris slaughter reflects the forces of civilization struggling to preserve universal values against the forces of darkness bent on destroying those values. Huntington again: “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world.”

If Huntington presents the more accurate depiction of the relationship between the West and Islam, then certain conclusions follow. First, expect the clash to intensify with Western military incursions into the lands of Islam. This isn’t conjecture. President George W. Bush played into the hands of Islamist extremists when he invaded Iraq, and Mr. Obama did the same when he expanded the Afghanistan mission to reshape political structures and behavior in the Afghan countryside. The threat to the West is greater today than it was before those actions were undertaken.

Second, Muslim immigration into the West inevitably will heighten prospects for bloodshed of the kind we saw in Paris on Friday. We learn from news reports that at least one of the Paris killers probably entered the country with the refugees now flooding into Europe. That should not surprise anyone, certainly not those who understand the true nature of the civilizational clash between the West and Islam.

France’s 4.7 million Muslims now constitute about 7.5 percent of the country’s population, and that number is projected to hit nearly 7 million by 2030. Generally, these people have not assimilated well into French society and hence constitute a mass of political and cultural anger that can only intensify in coming years.

And yet we see the Continent’s most influential leader, Germany’s Angela Merkel, beating the drums for ever greater infusions of Muslim refugees into Europe. And we see the editors of The Economist labeling her “the indispensable European.” This is what happens when humanitarian universalism supplants civilizational consciousness.

Europe is beginning to show some signs of civilizational consciousness, and that sentiment likely will intensify in the wake of the Paris bloodshed. But humanitarian universalism is powerfully embedded into the Western consciousness. Mrs. Merkel’s remarks after the Paris massacre showed little inclination to adjust her view of the world or of Europe’s future. Certainly the editors of The Economist and other like-minded liberals will never alter their gauzy notions. And news coverage of the Paris aftermath reflected the prevailing sentiment by habitually characterizing those who want to curtail Europe’s Muslim immigration as “xenophobic” and “radical.”

But the Muslim infusion represents an existential threat to Europe and the West. Maybe the people there will get rid of their current leaders now living in another world and install leaders who understand the true nature of the threat. Then again, maybe not.

Categories: Foreign policy, France, Human rights, Islam, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Merkel, Multiculturalism, Obama and Islam, Paris Muslim attack
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

France’s Politically Correct War on Islamic Terror

November 16, 2015

France’s Politically Correct War on Islamic Terror, The Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, November 16, 2015

(Please see also, Why Islam is a religion of war. — DM)

  • French leaders consistently act in ways that undermine their stated goal of eradicating Islamic terror.
  • Critics of the policy say “Daesh” is a politically correct linguistic device that allows Western leaders to claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic — and thus ignore the root cause of Islamic terror and militant jihad.
  • French leaders have also been consistently antagonistic toward Israel, a country facing Islamic terror on a daily basis. France is leading international diplomatic efforts to push for a UN resolution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within a period of two years. The move effectively whitewashes Palestinian terror.
  • French critics of Islam are routinely harassed with strategic lawsuits that seek to censor, intimidate and silence them. In a recent case, Sébastien Jallamion, a 43-year-old policeman from Lyon was suspended from his job and fined 5,000 euros after he condemned the death of Frenchman Hervé Gourdel, who was beheaded by jihadists in Algeria.
  • “Those who denounce the illegal behavior of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.” — Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s Front National.

French President François Hollande has vowed to avenge the November 13 jihadist attacks in Paris that left more than 120 dead and 350 injured.

Speaking from the Élysée Palace, Hollande blamed the Islamic State for the attacks, which he called an “act of war.” He said the response from France would be “unforgiving” and “merciless.”

Despite the tough rhetoric, however, the question remains: Does Hollande understand the true nature of the war he faces?

Hollande pointedly referred to the Islamic State as “Daesh,” the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, which in English translates as “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” or “ISIL.”

The official policy of the French government is to avoid using the term “Islamic State” because, according to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, it “blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists.”

Critics of the policy say “Daesh” is a politically correct linguistic device that allows Western leaders to claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic — and thus ignore the root cause of Islamic terror and militant jihad.

Islamic ideology divides the world into two spheres: the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of War (the non-Muslim world) is subject to permanent jihad until it is made part of the House of Islam, where Sharia is the law of the land.

Jihad — the perpetual struggle to expand Muslim domination throughout the world with the ultimate aim of bringing all of humanity under submission to the will of Allah — is the primary objective of true Islam, as unambiguously outlined in its foundational documents.

Consequently, even if the Islamic State were to be bombed into oblivion, France and the rest of the non-Muslim world will continue to be the target of Islamic supremacists. The West cannot defeat Islamic terrorism by attempting to conceptually delink it from true Islam. But still they try.

After the January 2015 jihadist attacks on the Paris offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead, President Hollande declared:

“We must reject facile thinking and eschew exaggeration. Those who committed these terrorist acts, those terrorists, those fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said: “We are in a war against terrorism. We are not in a war against religion, against a civilization.” Again, he said: “We are at war with terrorism, jihadism and radicalism. France is not at war against Islam and Muslims.”

At a June conference with more than 100 leaders of the French Muslim community, Valls denied there is any link between extremism and Islam. He also refused to raise the issue of radicalization because the topic was “too sensitive.” Instead, he said:

“Islam still provokes misunderstandings, prejudices and is rejected by some citizens. Yet Islam is here to stay in France. It is the second largest religious group in our country.

“We must say all of this is not Islam: The hate speech, anti-Semitism that hides behind anti-Zionism and hate for Israel, the self-proclaimed imams in our neighborhoods and our prisons who are promoting violence and terrorism.”

1348After the January 2015 jihadist attacks in Paris, France’s President François Hollande declared: “We must reject facile thinking and eschew exaggeration. Those who committed these terrorist acts, those terrorists, those fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”

France is home to around 6.5 million Muslims, or roughly 10% of the country’s total population of 66 million. Although most Muslims in France live peacefully, many are drawn to radical Islam. A CSA poll found that 22% of Muslims in the country consider themselves Muslim first and French second. Nearly one out of five (17%) Muslims in France believe that Sharia law should be fully applied in France, while 37% believe that parts of Sharia should be applied in the country.

France is also one of the largest European sources of so-called foreign fighters in Syria: More than 1,500 French Muslims have joined the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and many more are believed to be supporters of the group in France.

Since the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the French government has introduced a raft of new counter-terrorism measures — including sweeping surveillance powers to eavesdrop on the public — aimed at preventing further jihadist attacks.

French counter-terrorism operatives have foiled a number of jihadist plots, including a plan to attack a major navy base in Toulon, and an attempt to murder a Socialist MP in Paris.

As the latest attacks in Paris (as well as the failed attack on a high-speed train from Amsterdam to Paris in August) show, surveillance is not foolproof. Claude Moniquet, a former French intelligence operative, warns that European intelligence agencies are overwhelmed by the sheer number of people who may pose a threat. He writes:

“Some 6,000 Europeans are or were involved in the fighting in Syria (they went there, they were killed in action, they are still in IS camps, they are on their way there or their way back.)

“If you have 6,000 ‘active’ jihadists, this probably means that if you try to count those who were not identified, the logistics people who help them join up, their sympathizers and the most radical extremists who are not yet involved in violence but are on the verge of it, you have something between 10,000 and 20,000 ‘dangerous’ people in Europe.

“To carry out ‘normal’ surveillance on a suspect on a permanent basis, you need 20 to 30 agents and a dozen vehicles. And these are just the requirements for a ‘quiet’ target.

“If the suspect travels abroad, for instance, the figure could go up to 50 or 80 agents and necessitate co-operation between the services of various countries. Work it out: to keep watch on all the potential suspects, you’d need between 120,000 and 500,000 agents throughout Europe. Mission impossible!”

Meanwhile, French leaders consistently act in ways that undermine their stated goal of eradicating Islamic terror.

The French government has been one of the leading European proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Although Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, are responsible for deaths of scores of French citizens, Fabius wasted no time in rushing to Tehran in search of business opportunities for French companies. In July, Fabius proclaimed:

“We are two great independent countries, two great civilizations. It is true that in recent years, for reasons that everyone knows, links have loosened, but now thanks to the nuclear deal, things are going to change.”

Fabius also extended an invitation for Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, to visit France in November. This trip — which has been mired in controversy, not over terrorism or nuclear proliferation, but over Iran’s demand that no wine be served during a formal dinner at the Élysée Palace — was postponed indefinitely after the Paris attacks. Hollande’s advisors apparently concluded that this is not the right moment for a photo-op with Rouhani, a career terrorist.

French leaders have also been consistently antagonistic toward Israel, a country facing Islamic terror on a daily basis.

After Israel launched a military offensive aimed at stopping Islamic terror groups in the Gaza Strip from launching missiles into the Jewish state, France led international calls for Israel to halt the operation. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said:

“France calls for an immediate ceasefire… to ensure that every side starts talking to each other to avoid an escalation that would be tragic for this part of the world.”

More recently, France has been a leading European advocate of a European Union policy that now requires Israel to label products “originating in Israeli settlements beyond Israel’s 1967 borders.” The move is widely seen as part of an international campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the move:

“The labelling of products of the Jewish state by the European Union brings back dark memories. Europe should be ashamed of itself. It took an immoral decision… this will not advance peace, it will certainly not advance truth and justice. It is wrong.”

France is also leading international diplomatic efforts to push for a United Nations resolution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within a period of two years. The move effectively whitewashes Palestinian terror. Netanyahu responded:

“The only way to reach an agreement is through bilateral negotiations, and we will forcibly reject any attempts to force upon us international dictates.

“In the international proposals that have been suggested to us — which they are actually trying to force upon us — there is no real reference to Israel’s security needs or our other national interests.

“They are simply trying to push us into indefensible borders while completely ignoring what will happen on the other side of the border.”

Meanwhile, after more than a year as a member of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State, French officials waited until late September to begin striking targets in Syria. But they refused to destroy the headquarters of the Islamic State in Raqqa — where the Paris attacks were reportedly planned.

Back in France, critics of Islam are routinely harassed with strategic lawsuits that seek to censor, intimidate and silence them.

In a recent case, Sébastien Jallamion, a 43-year-old policeman from Lyon, was suspended from his job and fined 5,000 euros after he condemned the death of Frenchman Hervé Gourdel, who was beheaded by jihadists in Algeria in September 2014. Jallamion explained:

“According to the administrative decree that was sent to me today, I am accused of having created an anonymous Facebook page in September 2014, showing several ‘provocative’ images and commentaries, ‘discriminatory and injurious,’ of a ‘xenophobic or anti-Muslim’ nature. As an example, there was that portrait of the Calif al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, with a visor on his forehead. This publication was exhibited during my appearance before the discipline committee with the following accusation: ‘Are you not ashamed of stigmatizing an imam in this way?’ My lawyer can confirm this… It looks like a political punishment. I cannot see any other explanation.

“Our fundamental values, those for which many of our ancestors gave their life are deteriorating, and that it is time for us to become indignant over what our country is turning into. This is not France, land of Enlightenment that in its day shone over all of Europe and beyond. We must fight to preserve our values, it’s a matter of survival.”

Meanwhile, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s Front National (FN) and one of the most popular politicians in the country, went on trial in October 2015 for comparing Muslim street prayers to the wartime occupation of France. At a campaign rally in Lyon in 2010, she said:

“I’m sorry, but for those who really like to talk about World War II, if we’re talking about an occupation, we could talk about the [street prayers], because that is clearly an occupation of territory.

“It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of neighborhoods in which religious law applies — it is an occupation. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is an occupation nevertheless, and it weighs on people.”

Le Pen said she was a victim of “judicial persecution” and added:

“It is a scandal that a political leader can be sued for expressing her beliefs. Those who denounce the illegal behavior of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.”

Responding to the jihadist attacks in Paris, Le Pen said:

“France and the French are no longer safe. It is my duty to tell you. Urgent action is needed.

“France must finally identify her allies and her enemies. Her enemies are those countries that have friendly relationships with radical Islam, and also those countries that have an ambiguous attitude toward terrorist enterprises.

“Regardless of what the European Union says, it is essential that France regain permanent control over its borders.

“France has been rendered vulnerable; it must rearm, because for too long it has undergone a programmed collapse of its defensive capabilities in the face of predictable and growing threats. It must restore its military resources, police, gendarmerie, intelligence and customs. The State must be able to ensure again its vital mission of protecting the French.

“Finally, Islamist fundamentalism must be annihilated. France must ban Islamist organizations, close radical mosques and expel foreigners who preach hatred in our country as well as illegal migrants who have nothing to do here. As for dual nationals who are participating in these Islamist movements, they must be stripped of their French nationality and deported.”

In the aftermath of the attacks, Le Pen, who has long been critical of President Hollande’s politically correct counter-terrorism policies, is certain to rise in public opinion polls. This will increase the political pressure on the government to take decisive action against the jihadists.

Faced with similar pressure after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, Hollande seemed reluctant to push too far, apparently fearful of the consequences of confronting the Muslim community in France. It remains to be seen whether the latest attacks in Paris, which some are describing as France’s September 11, mark a turning point.

Categories: Charlie Hedbo, Europe, Foreign policy, France, Freedom of speech, Hollande, Iran scam, Islamic culture, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamophobia, Israel, Multiculturalism, Palestinian heroes, Paris Muslim attack
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Why can’t the terrorists see that climate change is the most important security issue?

November 16, 2015

Why can’t the terrorists see that climate change is the most important security issue? American Thinker, Jack Hellner, November 16, 2015

(Do I really need to label this “satire?” –DM)

We shouldn’t allow this isolated event in Paris to take our eye off the ball. After all we have our President, Secretary of State and top Democratic candidate focused like a laser beam on the most dangerous threat to our freedom; climate change. They are showing true leadership. Al Gore was doing a 24 hour webcast at the Eiffel Tower Friday the 13th on climate change. If only the terrorists had been listening maybe they could have understood how much we cared and the attack wouldn’t have happened.

Thank goodness France is a gun free zone. That kept them safe.

As the President said Friday, ISIS is contained. As in 2012 when he said we have the terrorists on the run. His thoughts and talking points are obviously based on reality. After all we are sending in 50 advisors to Syria. That should handle it.

ISIS and other terrorist groups do not believe in economic freedom, political freedom, free speech, religious freedom or women’s’ rights but if we can control the temperature and sea levels that should change their minds.

The migrants from Africa would not be going to Europe if they could see all the work being done on climate change. If Africa could just reduce their quality and length of life by getting rid of fossil fuels they would stay. The secondary reason for them leaving is that tyrants and terrorists are killing them.

The World politicians can’t handle a relatively small terrorist group like ISIS, can’t figure out how to fix a small economy like Greece but yet are so arrogant they believe they can control the temperature within one or two degrees two hundred years out and absolutely control the levels of the sea.

When I heard about the Paris attack, I thought for sure it was caused by a video no one had seen.

Heaven help us!

Categories: Climate change, Foreign policy, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Obama and Islamic State, Paris Muslim attack, Satire
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What France and Europe Might Learn

November 15, 2015

What France and Europe Might Learn, The Gatestone Institute, Bassam Tawil, November 15, 2015

  • By constantly endorsing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli policies, France has obviously been seeking to appease Islamic countries. France seems convinced that such policies will keep Muslim terrorists from targeting French nationals and interests. The French are now in grave danger of mistakenly believing that the November 13 attacks occurred because France did not appease the Muslim terrorists enough.
  • When the terrorists see that pressure works — increasing the pressure should work even more!
  • The French and Europeans would do well to understand that there is no difference between a young Palestinian who takes a knife and sets out to murder Jews, and an Islamic State terrorist who murders dozens of innocent people in Paris.
  • The reason Muslim extremists want to destroy Israel is not because of the settlements or checkpoints it is because they believe that Jews have no right to be in the Middle East whatsoever. And they want to destroy Europe because they believe that Christians — and everyone — have no right to be anything other than Muslim.
  • The terrorists attacking Jews also seek to destroy France, Germany, Britain and, of course, the United States. These countries need to be reminded that the Islamist terrorists’ ultimate goal is to force all non-Muslims to submit to Islam or face death.

Earlier this year, France was one of eight countries that supported a Palestinian resolution at the United Nations Security Council, calling for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines by the end of 2017.

This vote means that France supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, likely to be ruled by the same type of people who on Friday carried out the most grisly terror attacks in France since World War II.

1347Scenes from Friday’s grisly terror attacks in Paris.

Today, every Palestinian child knows that in the best case, a future Palestinian state will be run by Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and in the worst case by the Islamic State and its affiliates. Has it occurred to anyone in Europe that the Palestinian people might not want to live under the rule of any of the groups, any more than Europeans would?

France and the rest of the EU countries have long been working against their own interests in the Middle East. By constantly endorsing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli policies, France has obviously been seeking to appease the Arab and Islamic countries. France seems convinced that such policies will keep Muslim terrorists from targeting French nationals and interests. That is probably why the French have made the catastrophic mistake of believing that the policy of appeasement toward Arabs and Muslims would persuade the Islamist terrorists to stay away from France. The French are now in grave danger of mistakenly believing that the November 13 attacks occurred because France did not appease the Muslim terrorists enough.

Sadly, the two earlier terrorist attacks that took place in Paris this year — against the Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper and the HyperCacher Jewish supermarket — failed to convince the French that the policy of appeasement towards Arabs and Muslims is not only worthless, but also dangerous.

Instead of learning from these previous mistakes and embarking on a new policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general and extremist Islam in particular, the French continued with their strategy of appeasement even after the Charlie Hebdo and the HyperCacher supermarket attacks.

Most recently, France voiced its backing for EU plans to label products from Israeli settlements, doubtless thinking that such a move would make the Muslim terrorists happy with the French. But, as last Friday’s terrorist attacks showed, the Islamic State and its supporters are not particularly impressed by anti-Israel moves.

Muslim terrorists do not care about the settlements. For them, that is a trivial issue compared to their chief goal and dream: truthfully, to kill all infidels and establish an Islamic empire. The Muslim terrorists who have been murdering Jews in Israel and other parts of the world also seek to kill anyone they perceive as being friends of Western values in general. These include, above all, Christians — either those unfortunate enough still to be living in the Middle East, but also those living in France and other Western countries.

The reason Muslim extremists want to destroy Israel is not because of the settlements or checkpoints. They want to destroy Israel because they believe that Jews have no right to be in the Middle East whatsoever. And they want to destroy Europe because they believe that Christians — and everyone — have no right to be anything other than Muslim. That is also why Muslims seem not particularly interested in the EU’s decision to label products from Israeli settlements. It is worth noting that the decision to label Israeli goods was not even an Arab or Islamic initiative.

The EU’s decision to boycott products from Israeli settlements has sent entirely the wrong message to the enemies of Israel and the enemies of Western values. These enemies of the West see the decision to label products as just the first step toward labeling all of Israel as an “illegal settlement.” It is no surprise that the first to celebrate the decision were Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

What France and other Western countries do not understand is that concessions and gestures are being misinterpreted by the terrorists as signs of weakness, which just invite more violence. When the terrorists see that pressure works, increasing the pressure should work even more!

The European boycotts are seen by the people here as nothing but cynical and heartless — attempts to court a thieving leadership at the expense of the people. The boycotts are seen here as nothing but keeping the Palestinian people in the grip of its corrupt leadership and prompting us to take another look at the extremists — the only choice offered up.

What the Europeans might have learned is that the assaults in Paris are what all of us here — Muslims, Christians and Jews — have been living with for decades.

During the past 22 years, all Israel’s territorial concessions and goodwill gestures have resulted only in increased terrorism against Israel, including us Arabs. Many Palestinians incorrectly saw the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 only as a retreat and a sign of weakness. If shooting at Jews made them leave Gaza — as it appeared — keep shooting at Jews. The result was that Hamas took credit for driving the Jews out of the Gaza Strip with rockets and suicide bombings, and quickly rose to power.

In the same manner, each time Israel has released Palestinian prisoners (including dozens with blood on their hands) as a gesture to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or U.S Secretary of State John Kerry, the Palestinians regarded the gesture as having their demands met. So the next step is to increase the violence and demand more. The Palestinians saw Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners, not as a sign that Israel was interested in peace and calm, but as a reward for terrorism.

Two months ago, France took another step in appeasing the Arabs and Muslims. This time, the French voted in favor of raising a Palestinian flag at the UN headquarters. “This flag is a powerful symbol, a glimmer of hope for the Palestinians,” UN French Ambassador Francois Delattre said. Again, the French apparently thought that the vote would satisfy the Arabs and Muslims and persuade the terrorists that France was on their side in the fight against Israel.

France’s — and Europe’s — flawed policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not start in the past year or two. Four years ago, France voted in favor of granting the Palestinians full membership of the UN’s Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Last month, the Palestinian Authority leadership unsuccessfully tried to use UNESCO to pass a resolution declaring the Western Wall a holy site for Muslims only. The resolution was changed at the last minute into one just condemning Israel, but instead of opposing the resolution, an embarrassed France chose to abstain. UNESCO, however, did vote that two ancient Jewish heritage sites symbolic of the Biblical era, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs, would henceforth be known as Muslim heritage sites. The same week, another Biblical site, Joseph’s Tomb, was set on fire (for the second time; the first was in 2000) by people whose government, the Palestinian Authority, had agreed to protect it.

For the past few weeks, Palestinians have been waging a new wave of terrorism against Israelis. This time, the Palestinians are using rifles, knives, stones and cars to murder as many Jews as possible. But we still have not heard any real condemnation — from France, Europe or anyone — of the Palestinian terrorism.

We have also not heard France or other EU countries demand that President Mahmoud Abbas condemn the terrorist attacks against Israelis. Most French media outlets and journalists have even refused to refer to the Palestinian assailants as terrorists — despite many of the terrorists being affiliated two Palestinian groups that share the same ideology as Islamic State: Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

By failing to condemn the terrorist attacks against Israelis and name the perpetrators for what they are — ruthless murderers and terrorists — France and Western countries are once again sending the wrong message to the Islamists: that killing Jews is not an act of terrorism.

What these countries do not realize is that the terrorists who are attacking Jews also seek to destroy France, Germany, Britain and, of course, the “Big Satan” (the United States). These countries need to be reminded every day that the Islamist terrorists’ ultimate goal is to force all non-Muslims to submit to Islam or face death. Sometimes, the terrorists do not even have the patience to offer this choice to the “infidels,” and just kill them while they are watching a concert or a soccer match.

It now remains to be seen whether the French will wake up and realize that radical Islam is at war with the “unbelievers” and all those who refuse to accept the dictates of Islamic State and other Muslim extremists. This is a war that Israel has been fighting now for more than two decades, but, sadly, with little support — and most often with venomous obstruction — from countries in Europe, including France.

The French and Europeans would do well to understand that there is no difference between a young Palestinian who takes a knife and sets out to murder Jews, and an Islamic State terrorist who murders dozens of innocent people in Paris. Once the French and other Europeans understand this reality, it will be far easier for them to engage in the battle against Islamic terrorism.

Categories: Abbas, Appeasement, Europe, Foreign policy, Hamas, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic jihad, Islamism, Israel, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians and Jews, Paris Muslim attack, Peace process
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Western leaders ignore ‘apocalyptic Islam’ at their peril

November 15, 2015

Western leaders ignore ‘apocalyptic Islam’ at their peril, Israel National News, Ari Soffer, November 15, 2015

img634813Bataclan concert hall following terror attackReuters

[G]laringly absent from the discussions [of the Paris attack] are any serious attempts to understand the ideological motivations of the Muslim extremists, several of them French citizens, who carried out the worse terror attacks in France in a generation – including the first-ever suicide bombings on French soil.

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

Despite years of warnings by intelligence agencies that radicalized Muslims would eventually emerge from the battlefields of Syria and Iraq to launch bloody attacks in the West, Europe has been blindsided by one of the most brutal terrorist atrocities in recent memory.

The coordinated attacks by three teams of ISIS terrorists in Paris on Friday sent shockwaves far beyond France, with the massacre of at least 129 people reigniting the debate around immigration after it was revealed that at least two of the attackers entered Europe posing as “refugees.”

The attacks also fueled debate over how to end the Syrian civil war, as well as over ongoing efforts to defeat ISIS on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq, the latter of which has seen several successes over the past few weeks.

But glaringly absent from the discussions are any serious attempts to understand the ideological motivations of the Muslim extremists, several of them French citizens, who carried out the worse terror attacks in France in a generation – including the first-ever suicide bombings on French soil.

That, says best-selling author Joel Rosenberg, is the reason such acts of terror are bound to repeat themselves.

Joel spoke to me prior to the attacks at the recent Jerusalem Leaders Policy Summit, and voiced concern that by failing to grapple with the apocalyptic ideology behind actors such as ISIS, Western states would never be able to decisively defeat them.

Watch: Author Joel Rosenberg speaks in Jerusalem:

A jovial, somewhat self-deprecating character, Rosenberg – who worked for Binyamin Netanyahu during his failed prime ministerial bid in 1999, as well as Natan Sharansky – describes himself as “a failed political consultant,” but boasts a rather more successful career as writer, selling millions of novels highlighting the threat of radical Islam.

Today he lives in Netanya in northern Israel with his family, having made aliyah from the US last August at the height of Operation Protective Edge (though a practicing Christian his father was Jewish, making him eligible for aliyah under the Right of Return). From there, he has continued his efforts to explain “the threats we mutually face as Israelis and Americans from radical Islam” – a threat he says he only fully appreciated after working with Netanyahu.

“Misunderstanding the nature of the threat… of evil, is to risk being blindsided by it,” he said, citing Peal Harbor and 9/11 as examples. “And we’re going to be blindsided by a nuclear Iran, just like we’re being blindsided by ISIS.”

“At the core of it, American leaders are refusing to deal with the theology and eschatology of our enemy,” he said. “Not every Muslim is a terrorist, not every Muslim is a threat, not every Muslim is a problem – in fact the vast majority are not.

“The question is, the ones who are – what do they want? What do they say they want? What motivates them?”

The current US administration is particularly hesitant to label the threat as it is.

“Obama refuses to even acknowledge radical Islam. Come on – really? At this stage in the 21st century you’re not even ready to acknowledge the ideology that is motivating these folks? That’s a problem.”

Days later, as the attacks in Paris unfolded, some criticized the US president for once again failing to mention radical Islam at all in his speech reacting to the massacre.

Watch: Obama delivers response to Paris attacks:

But beyond the relatively wide umbrella of “radical Islam” Rosenberg warns of a far deadlier threat.

“Radical Islam encompasses a wide range of groups… Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Al Qaeda – all of these are serious threats,” he noted. “But apocalyptic Islam is now the biggest threat. this is the Iranian leadership, this is ISIS.”

He argues that the hyper-messianic ideologies shared by both sides of the Shia-Sunni jihadist coin are unprecedented in the history of modern western civilization.

“Apocalyptic Islam is motivated by the idea that the end of days has come, that the Mahdi [Muslim messiah – ed.] is coming at any moment to establish a global Islamic kingdom or Caliphate, and that the way to hasten his coming is to annihilate two countries: Israel the ‘Little Satan,’ and America the ‘Big Satan,'” he explained, describing the messianic beliefs shared by both ISIS and the “Twelver Shia” sect which figures prominently among Iran’s leadership.

“But the western political class doesn’t want to even deal with the theological ideas that are driving the radical Islamists – let alone to explain the end of times theologies of two ‘nation states’,” he continued, referring to Iran and ISIS’s self-declared “Islamic State,” which encompasses huge swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.

“Never in history have we had one, much less than two states, whose leaders are trying to force the end of the world,” Rosenberg noted.

While Jews and Christians also have their own beliefs in the “end of times” or the messianic age, the difference is that “we don’t believe we have to commit a genocide to bring about the end of times.”

While some strategic and doctrinal differences do clearly exist between Iran and ISIS – who are themselves mortal enemies – Rosenberg emphasized that the fundamental threat was essentially the same.

“Shia apocalypticism and Sunni apocalypticism are similar. Both believe the messiah is coming soon, that his kingdom is coming, they need to change their behavior to accelerate his coming… but the eschatology and strategies are different.

“ISIS’s strategy is to commit genocide today, because the goal is to build the caliphate, to force the hand of the messiah to come.

“Iran is not trying to build a caliphate today. They’re building the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons. Why? Because while ISIS wants to commit genocide today Iran wants to commit genocide tomorrow. The point is: don’t launch until you’re ready. Rather than kill thousands in one day, Iran wants to eventually kill millions.”

He disagreed with assessments shared by some experts that the Iranian regime, while extreme, ultimately functions as a rational actor, insisting their words, beliefs and actions only led to one conclusion.

“When you look a the messages of annihilation they are saying… when you look at the infrastructure they’re building and when you look at the eschatology, these roads converge.

“They’re not interested in negotiating something together with us – they’re taking a gift,” he said of the nuclear deal Tehran signed with world powers. “You’re giving us two paths to a nuclear bomb: if we cheat, or if we don’t cheat? OK we’ll take it!”

In the shorter term Iran might they use its nuclear capabilities for more limited political goals such as “blackmail or to give a cover for terror,” he said.

But in the long term its goals were just as bloodthirsty as ISIS. In facing down both threats, the West must recognize it is facing a zero-sum game.

“For these guys killing is at the center of what they’re doing. When you bear that in mind making concessions isn’t just a mistake or misguided – it’s insane.”

Categories: Apocalypticism, Asylum seekers, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic State
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

November 15, 2015

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, November 15, 2015

Paris-Attack-Los-Angeles-French-Consulate-IPA woman takes part in a vigil in front of the French Consulate in Los Angeles as a show of solidarity with the people of France. (Photo: © Reuters)

The coordinated attacks in Paris and suspected Islamic State bombing of a Russian airliner raises the risk that Islamic State supporters in the U.S. and other Western countries will spur into action. The opening of a new phase in Islamic State (ISIS) terror will also result in a fresh wave of recruits radicalized by the appearance that the Islamic State is quickly ascending.

You can watch Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro discuss this increasing threat on FOX News’ “America’s News HQ” on Saturday afternoon below:

 

First, there is a risk of “copycat” attacks by the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorist supporters, including those who are loyal to Al-Qaeda and want to show that the group hasn’t become a “has-been” in the jihadist world. It is hard to express the excitement that an aspiring jihadist will feel at two breakthrough moments in the war against the West in such short order. At this sensitive time, any kind of an attack—even a simple shooting or pipe bombing—takes on much greater significance.

If an Islamist terrorist is planning or considering an attack, it is difficult to resist the temptation to strike now. Even a relatively minor attack becomes part of a bigger story, rather than being forgotten amongst the wave of headlines about acts of violence. On an egotistical level, a jihadist will want to attach his name to this dramatic story.

Secondly, there are those who will worry that they might now lose their chance to strike and earn their ticket to Paradise by dying in jihad as a “martyr.” Supporters of the Islamic State have every reason to expect Western governments to become extra aggressive in rounding up possible terrorists. ISIS supporters who believe they are on the authorities’ radar could choose to act sooner instead of patiently preparing their plot and risk being foiled.

The attacks in Paris and on the Russian airliner show that the threat from the Islamic State is greater than ever, and we’ve entered a new period where they’ve moved towards more sophisticated, Al-Qaeda-style attacks in the West. They are engaging in pre-planning and dispatching teams of operatives instead of just hoping to inspire a random supporter into committing violence independently. This upgrade in quality is a powerful tool in the Islamic State’s propaganda arsenal.

The organization’s ability to recruit is largely based on the appearance of success. No one wants to join an organization whose recent history is filled with losses. Moreover, success is seen as Allah‘s endorsement; the ultimate winning argument in a theological debate among those dabbling in Islamist extremism.

Just as the Islamic State’s burst onto the scene with the capturing of Mosul in 2014 earned it a wave of recruits, these attacks will also earn it a wave of recruits and it will encourage the millions of Islamic State supporters who have yet to take up arms to finally act upon their beliefs.

It is critical that the West push back against the Islamic State’s convincing narrative of success. Those in the region understand the importance of this. We saw many tweets from people in the Middle East directed towards ISIS that told the group that their attacks in Paris cannot erase their setbacks elsewhere.

Dramatic events like these make recent losses like the killing of “Jihadi John” and the Kurds recapturing Sinjar seem like distant memories, but they deserve to be a part of the news coverage and U.S. government’s international messaging. Instead of focusing on single events that the Islamic State hopes will grab our attention, we must put them into a broader context that the Islamic State is less eager for the public to know about.

Categories: Europe, Foreign policy, Islamic invasion, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Obama and Islam
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The migrant jihad has begun in Paris

November 14, 2015

The migrant jihad has begun in Paris, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 14, 2015

paris-jihad-attack

Barack Obama was true to form, not mentioning Islam or Muslims in his statement on the Paris attacks, and not giving a hint that it was his precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq that created the vacuum that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Islamic State could end up being the most significant legacy of the Obama Administration.

[A]s the Western intelligentsia fell into familiar patterns of response, it only ensured that there would be many, many more attacks, in Europe and the U.S., like the one in Paris Friday. It seems as if no amount of disconfirming evidence will move the establishment Left to remove its blinkers, discard its politically correct fantasies, and face the jihad threat realistically. The Leftists in the corridors of power are today ensuring that there will be much, much more bloodshed.

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

That didn’t take long: one of the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis who murdered at least 160 people in Paris on Friday held a Syrian passport and passed through Greece in October. In October, he was a “refugee” seeking asylum in Europe from the Syrian war zone; in November, he was murdering French civilians for the Islamic caliphate. The Migrant Jihad has begun.

French and European authorities can’t say they weren’t warned. Last February, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have recently come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.

So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”

A year before that the Islamic State issued a call for jihad murders of French civilians: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.”

Then after the attacks the Islamic State issued a statement claiming responsibility for them, and warning: “Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris. Indeed, this is just the beginning. It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.”

So war was declared, and acts of war carried out – and the response has been drearily predictable. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere was swift to try to dissociate the Paris attacks from the migrant influx into Europe: “I would like to make this urgent plea to avoid drawing such swift links to the situation surrounding refugees.” Alas for de Maiziere, there was the inconvenient fact of that Syrian “refugee” who pass through Greece on his way to jihad in Paris.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama was true to form, not mentioning Islam or Muslims in his statement on the Paris attacks, and not giving a hint that it was his precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq that created the vacuum that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Islamic State could end up being the most significant legacy of the Obama Administration. Obviously American troops couldn’t have stayed in Iraq forever, and the Iraq project from its beginnings was based on false assumptions about Islam, ignoring its political, supremacist and violent aspects; but Obama’s hasty and ill-thought out withdrawal took into account none of the realities on the ground: the Sunni/Shi’ite divide, the Iranian influence in Baghdad, the Sunnis’ unwillingness to participate in the Baghdad government and the Shi’ites’ refusal to allow them to do so in any significant way, and more. France today is paying the price for the willful ignorance and short-sightedness of Obama and his administration.

The Leftist media is firmly stuck in willful ignorance mode as well. Salon published a piece entitled, “Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves,” and another entitled, “And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists.” The Guardian worried that after the Paris jihad murders Friday, “far-right groups may well fuel more hatred.” Neither Salon nor the Guardian, nor any other mainstream media outlet, published any realistic assessment of the advancing jihad threat in France and the West in general.

And so as the Western intelligentsia fell into familiar patterns of response, it only ensured that there would be many, many more attacks, in Europe and the U.S., like the one in Paris Friday. It seems as if no amount of disconfirming evidence will move the establishment Left to remove its blinkers, discard its politically correct fantasies, and face the jihad threat realistically. The Leftists in the corridors of power are today ensuring that there will be much, much more bloodshed.

Categories: Asylum seekers, Denial, Europe, European Union, Foreign policy, Hijrah, Islam, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic State, Paris Muslim attack, Progressives
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »