human rights | WarSclerotic | Page 20

Posted tagged ‘human rights’

Sleeper Cell Documentary: Radical Islamic Camps in America

March 1, 2015

Sleeper Cell Documentary: Radical Islamic Camps in America, Counter Jihad Report, Ryan Mauro, March 1, 2015

(“Islamophobia” or rational concern? Somehow, it seems unlikely that “jobs for jihadists” will deal satisfactorily with the problem. Thanks again to Counter Jihad Report, one of the few sites to deal adequately with such threats.– DM)

This Blaze TV episode of “For the Record” aired February 19, 2014 and is largely based on the research of Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project. It exposes the network of Muslims of the Americas, a branch of the Pakistani group Jamaat ul-Fuqra, across the U.S. It is headquartered at “Islamberg,” New York.

Read about Mauro’s identification of an ul-Fuqra jihadist enclave in Texas:

Exclusive: Islamist Terror Enclave Discovered in Texas
The discovery led a dozen North American Muslim groups and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) to call on the State Department to list ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization:

Muslims Join Clarion’s Call for ul-Fuqra to be Foreign Terrorist Org.
Texas Congressman: Terror Enclave Discovery ‘Appalling’

Categories: Caliphate, Diversity, Domestic policy, FBI, Foreign policy, Free world, Freedom, Funding terrorism, Human rights, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jihad, Jobs for jihadists, Leftists, Moral equivalence, Muslims, Obama, Pakistan, Sleeper cells, Terrorists
Tags: Caliphate, DIversity, Domestic policy, FBI, Foreign Policy, Free world, Freedom, Funding terrorism, human rights, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jihad, Jobs for jihadists, Leftists, Moral equivalence, Pakistan, Sleeper cells, Terrorists

Comments: 1 Comment

Bring Back the Bush Doctrine—with One Addition

March 1, 2015

Bring Back the Bush Doctrine—with One Addition, National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy, February 28, 2015

Our enemies are not driven by American foreign policy, our friendship with Israel, our detention of jihadists at Gitmo, or the supposed “arrogance” our current president likes to apologize for. Those are all pretexts for aggression.

Our enemies are driven by an ideology, Islamic supremacism, that is rooted in a classical interpretation of sharia — Islamic law. Islamic supremacism is rabidly anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic. It rejects the fundamental premise of our liberty: that people are free to govern themselves, rather than be ruled by a totalitarian legal code that suffocates liberty and brutally discriminates against non-Muslims and apostates. And sharia is an actual war on women — denying them equal rights under the law, subjecting them to unthinkable abuse, and reducing them in many ways to chattel.

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

There is a path to victory in the fight against radical Islam, and our next president should embrace it.

What should be our strategy against ISIS? We ask the question without ever considering Iran. What concessions about centrifuges and spent fuel should we demand to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power? We ask the question never linking the mullahs’ weapons ambitions with its sponsorship of the global jihad . . . the only reason we dread a nuclear Iran. What should be the national-defense strategy of the United States against radical Islam, the most immediate and thoroughgoing security and cultural threat we face today?

I had the good fortune to be asked to participate in a CPAC panel Friday on defending America against rogue states. With 2016 hopefuls crowding the halls, it got me to thinking: What should we hope to hear from Republicans who want to be the party’s standard-bearer?

It is often said that we lack a strategy for defeating our enemies. Actually, we have had a strategy for 14 years, ever since the fleeting moment of clarity right after the 9/11 attacks.

That strategy is called the Bush Doctrine, and it remains the only one that has any chance of working . . . at least if we add a small but crucial addendum — one that should have been obvious enough back in 2001, and that hard lessons of history have now made inescapable.

The Bush Doctrine has become the source of copious rebuke. On the left, that’s because of that four-letter word (hint: It’s not “Doctrine”). On the right, there have been plenty of catcalls, too. The reaction, however, has been against what the Bush Doctrine evolved into, not against the Bush Doctrine as it was first announced.

The unadorned Bush Doctrine had two straightforward parts. First, because violent jihadists launch attacks against the United States when they have safe havens from which to plot and train, we must hunt down those terrorists wherever on earth they operate. Second, the nations of the world must be put to a choice: You are with us or you are with the terrorists. Period — no middle ground. If you are with the terrorists, you will be regarded, as they are regarded, as an enemy of the United States.

Before we get to that aforementioned addendum, it is important to remember why the Bush Doctrine was so necessary. For the nine years before it, we were living with the Clinton Doctrine.

That is the doctrine President Obama came to office promising to move us back to — and has he ever. It is the doctrine under which the enemy strikes us with bombs and weaponized jumbo jets, and we respond with subpoenas and indictments. It is the doctrine under which our enemies say, “allahu akbar! Death to America!” and we respond, “Gee, you know America has been arrogant. We can see why you’re so upset.”

The Clinton Doctrine — the one the Democrats will be running on in 2016, perhaps with its namesake leading the way — is the one that gave us a series of ever more audacious attacks through the 1990s: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; a plot to bomb New York City landmarks such as the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels; a plot to blow American airliners out of the sky over the Pacific; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, in which Iran and al-Qaeda teamed up to kill 19 American airmen; the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed over 200 innocent people; detonating a bomb next to our destroyer, the U.S.S. Cole, in October 2000, killing 17 members of the U.S. Navy; and finally, the 9/11 atrocities, killing nearly 3,000 of our citizens.

And what has gradually restoring the Clinton Doctrine gotten us? While President Obama pleads for a deal that will inevitably make Iran a nuclear power, the mullahs continue to back anti-American terrorists and conduct military exercises in which they practice blowing up American ships. The Iraq so many Americans gave their lives for is now an extension of Iran. Afghanistan is being returned to the Taliban, which the president empowers by releasing its commanders. Libya is now a failed state where jihadists murder Americans with impunity and frolic in the former American embassy. Al-Qaeda is expanding through northern Africa, now a bigger, more potent threat than it was on the eve of 9/11. And yet it may pale compared with its breakaway faction, the Islamic State, which now controls more territory than Great Britain, as it decapitates, incinerates, and rapes its way to a global caliphate.

But Obama tells us there’s good news: Yemen is a success . . . or at least it was until it was recently overrun by an Iran-backed militia — oops. Well, we have indicted exactly one of the scores of terrorists who attacked our embassy at Benghazi. He got his Miranda warnings, of course, and he’ll be getting his civilian trial any month now. Hopefully, we’ll do better than Obama’s civilian trial of Ahmed Ghailani, the bomber of our embassies who was acquitted on 284 out of 285 counts.

Is it any wonder we’re losing?

Largely, it is because we’re worried about the wrong things — like whether we can sweep the enemy off its feet with enough Islamophilic, blame-America-first rhetoric. In reality, our enemies could not care less whether we — the infidel West — think their literalist, scripturally based belief system is a “perversion” of Islam. Radical Islam hears only one message from America: strength or weakness. The Clinton Doctrine is weakness cubed.

The Bush Doctrine, by contrast, is the path to victory — if we get that one addendum right.

It is this: Our enemies are not driven by American foreign policy, our friendship with Israel, our detention of jihadists at Gitmo, or the supposed “arrogance” our current president likes to apologize for. Those are all pretexts for aggression.

Our enemies are driven by an ideology, Islamic supremacism, that is rooted in a classical interpretation of sharia — Islamic law. Islamic supremacism is rabidly anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic. It rejects the fundamental premise of our liberty: that people are free to govern themselves, rather than be ruled by a totalitarian legal code that suffocates liberty and brutally discriminates against non-Muslims and apostates. And sharia is an actual war on women — denying them equal rights under the law, subjecting them to unthinkable abuse, and reducing them in many ways to chattel.

In the “you are with us or you are with the terrorists” view of national security, any Muslim nation, organization, or individual that adheres to Islamic supremacism is on the wrong side. Failing to come to terms with that brute fact is where the Bush Doctrine went awry.

Sharia and Western democracy cannot coexist. They are antithetical to each other. So insists Sheikh Yussuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood jurist who is the world’s most influential Islamic scholar. It may be the only thing we should agree with him about.

The Bush Doctrine was allowed to evolve from an American national-security strategy to an illusion that our national security would be strengthened by promoting a chimera — sharia democracy. We put the lives of our best young men and women in harm’s way in the service of a dubious experiment: that we could build stable Islamic democracies that would be reliable American allies against jihadist terror.

Perhaps the worst thing about this experiment is not its inevitable failure. It is the sapping of America’s will that it has caused. Defeating our jihadist enemies is going to require a will to win, because the enemy’s will is strong — the jihadists truly believe Allah has already helped them vanquish the Soviet empire, and that we are next.

The American people vigorously support military operations that are essential to our defense. They support a vigorous war to defeat violent jihadists and their support networks. They understand that we cannot cede our enemies safe havens and nuclear weapons.

They do not support the notion that promoting our national security obliges us to move into hostile Islamic countries for a decade or three to civilize them. That’s not our job. Worse, when Americans become convinced that Washington — ever more remote from the public — thinks it is our job, they will not support military action, even action that is vital to protecting our nation. They will not trust the government to defeat our enemies without becoming entangled in Islam’s endless internal strife.

Understanding Islamic supremacism so we can distinguish allies from those hostile to us will restore the Bush Doctrine. And let’s not be cowed by the critics: Nothing I’ve said means endless war, or that we have to invade or occupy every country. But it does mean we should be using all our assets — not just military but intelligence, law-enforcement, financial, and diplomatic — to undermine regimes that support sharia supremacism. Cutting off that jihadist life-line is the path to victory — just as maintaining a strong military that is allowed to show it means business, that is not hamstrung by irresponsible rules of engagement, is the best way to ensure we won’t have to use it too often.

In Iran, where sharia is the law of the land, they persecute non-Muslims and apostates just like ISIS does. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, they behead their prisoners just like ISIS does. A candidate who cannot tell liberty’s friends from liberty’s enemies is not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Categories: Bush doctrine, Caliphate, Clinton, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Human rights, Iran, Iran scam, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Moral equivalence, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Sharia law, Terrorism, Terrorists, Violent extremism
Tags: Bush doctrine, Caliphate, Clinton, Foreign Policy, Funding terrorism, human rights, Iran, Iran Scam, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Moral equivalence, Nukes, Sharia law, Terrorism, Terrorists, Violent extremism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Must Explain Why the Iran Deal Isn’t North Korea Redux

March 1, 2015

Obama Must Explain Why the Iran Deal Isn’t North Korea Redux, Commentary Magazine, Michael Rubin, March 1, 2015

(There are additional parallels. North Korea and Iran have comparable views of human rights, both make loud and frequent noises about obliterating their perceived enemies and both have allies willing if not anxious to sneak around sanctions. There are also differences. Iran is far more powerful than North Korea was or is and Iran’s intention to dominate the Middle East transcends North Korea’s desire to “unify” with South Korea on North Korea’s terms. Iranian governance is based on Islam, an unfortunately powerful world religion seeking world domination. North Korean governance is based on the “religion of Kim,” supreme internally but otherwise of little significance elsewhere. Iran also presents a greater danger to the U.S. than North Korea did. However, Obama won’t explain why the Iran deal isn’t “North Korea redux” because he quite likely neither knows nor cares and because it is. — DM)

The State Department has never conducted a lessons learned exercise about what went wrong with the North Korea deal. Perhaps it’s time. Diplomatic responsibility and national security demand it.

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

As the Obama administration rushes into a nuclear deal with Iran, it pays to remember the last time the United States struck a deal with a rogue regime in order to constrain that state’s nuclear program and the aftermath of that supposed success.

Bill Clinton had been president barely a month when North Korea announced that it would no longer allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, followed shortly thereafter by an announcement that it would withdraw from the NPT altogether within a matter of months. If Kim Il-sung expected Washington to flinch, he was right. The State Department aimed to keep North Korea within the NPT at almost any price. Chief U.S. negotiator Robert Gallucci and his aides explained in their book Going Critical, “If North Korea could walk away from the treaty’s obligations with impunity at the very moment its nuclear program appeared poised for weapons production, it would have dealt a devastating blow from which the treaty might never recover.” Unwilling to take any path that could lead to military action, Clinton’s team sought to talk Pyongyang away from nuclear defiance, no matter that talking and the inevitable concessions that followed legitimized Pyongyang’s brinkmanship.

As with President Obama relieving Iran of the burden of six United Nations Security Council resolutions which demanded a complete cessation of enrichment, Clinton’s willingness to negotiate North Korea’s nuclear compliance was itself a concession. After all, the 1953 Armistice required Pyongyang to reveal all military facilities and, in case of dispute, enable the Military Armistice Commission to determine the purpose of suspect facilities. By making weaker frameworks the new baseline, Clinton let North Korea off the hook before talks even began.

Just as Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati and Egyptian and Kuwaiti and Bahraini) leaders express frustration with the Obama administration regarding its naiveté and unwillingness to consult, so too did South Korea at the time chafe at Clinton’s arrogance. South Korean President Kim Young Sam complained to journalists that North Korea was leading America on and manipulating negotiators “to buy time.” And in a pattern that repeats today with regard to Iran, the IAEA held firmer to the demand that North Korea submit to real inspections than did Washington. The issue came to a head in September 1993 after the State Department pressured the IAEA to compromise on limited inspections.

In the face of Pyongyang’s defiance, Clinton was also wary that coercion could be a slippery slope to war. Just as President Obama and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel instructed U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf not to stand firm but rather to retreat if probed or pushed by Iran, Clinton sought to mollify Pyongyang, for example cancelling the joint U.S.–South Korea military exercise in 1994. Adding insult to injury, the Clinton administration criticized the South Korean government for being unwilling to compromise. Indeed, everything the Obama administration has done with regard to Israel over the past year—with the exception, perhaps, of the classless chickensh-t comment—was ripped right from the Clinton playbook two decades before when the White House sought to silence Seoul.

There followed months of baseless optimism in Washington, followed by disappointment quickly supplanted by denial. At one point, when it looked like Kim Il-sung’s intransigence might actually lead to war, former President Jimmy Carter visited Pyongyang and, whether cleared to or not, made concessions which diffused the situation. It was the diplomatic equivalent of Obama’s voided redlines. Nightlinehost Ted Koppel observed on May 18, 1994, “this administration is becoming notorious … for making threats and then backing down.”

On July 8, 1994, a heart attack felled Kim Il-sung. Kim Jong-il, his eldest son, took over. Negotiations progressed quickly. Gallucci and his team promised an escalating series of incentives—reactors, fuel oil, and other economic assistance. They kicked inspections of North Korea’s suspect plutonium sites years down the line.

What had begun as North Korean intransigence had netted Pyongyang billions of dollars in aid; it would go down in history as the largest reward for cheating and reneging on agreements until Obama granted Iran $11 billion in sanctions relief just for coming to the table. Columnist William Safire traced the steps of concessions on North Korea. “Mr. Clinton’s opening position was that untrustworthy North Korea must not be allowed to become a nuclear power,” he observed, but Clinton “soon trimmed that to say it must not possess nuclear bombs, and stoutly threatened sanctions if North Korea did not permit inspections of nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, where the CIA and KGB agree nuclear devices have been developed. But as a result of Clinton’s Very Good Deal Indeed, IAEA inspectors are denied entry to those plants for five years.” And Sen. John McCain, for his part, lamented that Clinton “has extended carrot after carrot, concession after concession, and pursued a policy of appeasement based … on the ill-founded belief that North Koreans really just wanted to be part of the community of nations.” Again, the parallels between Clinton’s and Obama’s assumptions about the desire of enemies to reform were consistent.

Clinton wasn’t going to broker any criticism of what he believed was a legacy-defining diplomatic triumph, all the more so when the criticism came from abroad. On October 7, 1994, South Korean President Kim Young Sam blasted Clinton’s deal with the North, saying, “If the United States wants to settle with a half-baked compromise and the media wants to describe it as a good agreement, they can. But I think it would bring more danger and peril.” There was nothing wrong with trying to resolve the problem through dialogue, he acknowledged, but the South Koreans knew very well how the North operated. “We have spoken with North Korea more than 400 times. It didn’t get us anywhere. They are not sincere,” Kim said. His outburst drew Clinton’s ire. He became the Netanyahu of his day. Meanwhile, the U.S. and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Gallucci and his team were “exhilarated.” They later bragged they “had overcome numerous obstacles in the negotiations with the North; survived the intense, sometimes strained collaboration with Seoul and the International Atomic Energy Agency; and marshaled and sustained an often unwieldy international coalition in opposition to the nuclear challenge, all under close and often critical scrutiny at home.”

Today, by some estimates, North Korea is well on its way to having 100 nuclear weapons and is steadily developing the ballistic capability to deliver them. Iran’s nuclear negotiators have cited North Korea’s negotiating strategy as a model to emulate rather than an example to condemn. Meanwhile, Obama has relied on many of the same negotiators to advance his deal with Iran.

The State Department has never conducted a lessons learned exercise about what went wrong with the North Korea deal. Perhaps it’s time. Diplomatic responsibility and national security demand it.

Categories: Carter, Clinton, Foreign policy, Human rights, IAEA, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Islam, Israel, Kerry, North Korea, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, South Korea, State Department
Tags: Carter, Clinton, Foreign Policy, human rights, IAEA, Iran, Iran Scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Islam, Israel, North Korea, Nukes, South Korea, State Department

Comments: 3 Comments

Muslims Trump All Other Minorities Because of the Victim Value Index

February 27, 2015

Muslims Trump All Other Minorities Because of the Victim Value Index, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 27, 2015

(The Islamic State is not valued like Hamas because, as all good Obamabots know, the Islamic State is “not Islamic” and merely engages in random, senseless violence. Perhaps if “real” Jews, Christians and other victims of “real” Islamic and other violence (the Holocaust, for example) were, and had in the past been, more violent they would have higher rankings on the Victim Value Index. Much of the world is insane.– DM)

terrorism-2-450x337

SJW code assumes that the angrier you are, the more oppressed you are. (Unless you’re a straight white male who isn’t pretending to be a woman and isn’t angry on behalf of an oppressed minority group.) But your anger is only useful if it serves the left.

The angriest groups, the ones with the newest rawest edge make the cut. A propensity for violence helps.

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

James Kirchick has written an extensive piece on the Victimhood Olympics replete with examples and references. He notes that…

Trans beats gay and Muslim beats black. As someone who writes frequently on the topic of homosexuality, I have learned the hard way what happens to those who challenge the orthodoxy of transgender activists…

This is because in the progressive imagination, the perceived plight of Muslims now trumps the sufferings of all other groups. It is this conceit that goes the furthest in explaining President Obama’s remark to Vox earlier this month that the murder of four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris last month was “random,”…

But he fails to explain what the basis for this hierarchy is. Why do Muslims trump Jews and why do trannies trump gay men?

There is a clear Victim Value Index. It’s not random. It has a definitive basis. That basis is the value of a victim identity to the left.

The first thing to understand is the dirty little secret of the Victim Value Index. While loud vocal assertions of suffering are very important, the substance of such suffering is unimportant when moving up the ladder of the Victim Value Index…

Actual suffering doesn’t matter. Neither does historical justice. Both of those are easy to make up, and in a dogma-ridden environment no one will look past the politically correct line anyway.

The Victim Value Index is calculated based on one overriding factor: Disruptiveness. Those who are most disruptive go to the head of the line.

This is the most obvious thing that people have noted about the Social Justice Warrior twitter mobs. They’re angry. They’re disruptive. This is also their virtue.

SJW code assumes that the angrier you are, the more oppressed you are. (Unless you’re a straight white male who isn’t pretending to be a woman and isn’t angry on behalf of an oppressed minority group.) But your anger is only useful if it serves the left.

The angriest groups, the ones with the newest rawest edge make the cut. A propensity for violence helps. Ergo, Muslims win.

Progressivism is a revolution in slow motion, and revolutions need revolutionaries. Disruption is more than just grievance, it’s violence. Those who are willing to ruthlessly attack the status quo clearing the ground for revolution are the ones who go to the head of the line and the dais of honor on top. A little murder and mayhem, and progressives will trot out “moderate” versions of the murderers and mayhemists, usually linked to them, and offer to represent them and tamp down the violence in exchange for meeting their demands.

September 11 and its aftermath is why Muslims have gone to the top of the Victim Value Index. The left may swear up and down that they are interested in Muslim civil rights, but if the Muslims were Sikhs, they would merit a place somewhere in the back. Before Muslims began prominently blowing things up in the United States, the left barely paid any attention to them. Once they did, they began outweighing every other group in the country because killing 3,000 people is the gold standard of revolutionary mayhem.

The Victim Value Index places the most disruptive groups at the front, the somewhat disruptive groups in the middle and the least disruptive groups at the back. The status of groups within the Index can change with their behavior. Muslims used to be shelved in the back with Asians, Indians and Jews. The War on Terror dramatically upgraded their status. The other groups are stuck there because they are relatively successful and aren’t rioting or blowing things up.

Latinos are still somewhere in the middle. Native Americans are in the back along with most unclassified minorities. Homosexuals are somewhere near the front, but behind African-Americans. Their status tends to drift wildly depending on current events, but they cannot overtake African-Americans or fall behind Latinos. Not unless some drastic events take place that change their status. Women are, and have always been, in the back.

The hierarchy can and does change. If Muslim violence were to suddenly disappear, the left’s interest in them in the US would go away. That’s a simple fact. The left values violent groups over non-violent ones. In the social media era, that can be virtual violence, cyberbullying and social media mobs. All that counts as activism and the left is keen to recruit activists for its cause.

Categories: Culture, Executions, Free world, Holocaust, Human rights, Ideology, Insanity, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Victims
Tags: Culture, Executions, Free world, Holocaust, human rights, Ideology, Insanity, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Victims

Comments: 1 Comment

Jury Finds Palestinian Authority Liable for Intifada Terror

February 23, 2015

Jury Finds Palestinian Authority Liable for Intifada Terror, Investigative Project on Terrorism, February 23, 2015

The judgment comes at a particularly difficult time for the Palestinian Authority, already strapped for cash and hoping to secure a place in the International Criminal Court to pursue war crimes charges against Israelis.

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

Palestinian Authority (PA) policies, including direct financial support to employees convicted by on terrorism charges, and payments to families of those killed waging terrorist attacks, make it liable for damages in attacks which killed wounded Americans, a New York jury decided Monday.

Jurors awarded $218.5 million in damages to the victims and their families. Provisions in the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act triple that to $655.5 million.

The jury’s award “will not bring back these families’ loved ones, nor heal the physical and psychological wounds inflicted upon them, but it truly is an important measure of justice and closure for them after their long years of tragic suffering and pain,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Israel’s Shurat HaDin law center, said after the jury award was announced. Darshan-Leitner has helped bring numerous civil cases against sponsors of terrorist attacks, saying the aim here, as in the other cases is “making the defendants pay for their terrorist crimes against innocent civilians and letting them know that there will eventually be a price to be paid for sending suicide bombers onto our buses and into our cafes.”

The judgment comes at a particularly difficult time for the Palestinian Authority, already strapped for cash and hoping to secure a place in the International Criminal Court to pursue war crimes charges against Israelis.

The jury received the case late Thursday, after about six weeks of testimony. They heard from survivors and eyewitnesses to the attacks, which included shooting sprees on Jerusalem streets, suicide bombings and the bombing of a Hebrew University cafeteria. Those attacks killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more.

Targeting civilians was “standard operating procedure” for the Palestine Liberation Organization, its Fatah military wing and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, plaintiffs’ attorney Kent Yalowitz told jurors when the trial began. Yasser Arafat, the PLO’s longtime chairman and the PA’s president, controlled all those entities.

Arafat’s handwritten consent appears on PA documents detailing the payments to the terrorists and their families that later were seized by Israeli military forces. Those records became key evidence showing the PA’s knowledge and support for the bloody wave of attacks. One 2002 report sent to the PA’s General Intelligence Service chief praised a West Bank squad for its “high quality successful attacks.”

The squad’s “men are very close to us (i.e. to the General Intelligence) and maintain with us continuous coordination and contacts,” the report said.

Many of the attackers and their accomplices were PA employees. Those who were sent to Israeli prisons remained on the PA payroll, with periodic raises depending on the length of their sentences.

Palestinian officials promise to appeal.

Defense attorneys maintained that the terrorists acted on their own and that the PA could not be responsible for the actions of all of its employees. In his closing argument, Yalowitz asked jurors to consider the outrageous nature of such communication.

“If you have a policy that says: If you commit a terrorist act, you keep your job,” gain promotions and keep your pay while serving a prison sentence, “that says something about who you are and what you believe in.”

Categories: Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Human rights, Intifada, Islamic jihad, Israel, Israel, Palestinians, Palestinian Authority, Terrorism
Tags: Foreign Policy, Funding terrorism, human rights, International criminal court, intifada, Islamic Jihad, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Terrorism

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Islamic ‘Ghosts on the Roof’

February 23, 2015

The Islamic ‘Ghosts on the Roof’, Front Page Magazine, Francis P. Sempa, February 23, 2015

lk-450x296

Chambers’ warnings were largely ignored by Western leaders whose willful blindness to the true nature of communism sealed the fate of millions behind the iron curtain in Europe, in China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere.

Today, perhaps the ghosts of Mehemed II and Sulieman the Magnificent are looking down and smiling as Western leaders fecklessly attempt to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs and search for “root causes” of ISIS terror and aggression. The Muse of History would understand, and her sister Melpomene, unfortunately, still has work to do.

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

Seventy years ago, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin met at Yalta to lay the foundations of the post-World War II world order. Less than one month after their historic meeting,TIME magazine on March 5, 1945, published an unsigned article entitled “Ghosts on the Roof.” The article was written by Whittaker Chambers, then TIME’s foreign news editor and formerly a member of a Washington, D.C.-based Soviet espionage ring. Chambers broke with communism in the late 1930s and in doing so remarked to his wife that they were joining the “losing side” in the great world struggle between communism and the West.

Chambers’ repeated efforts during the late 1930s and early 1940s to alert the State Department and the FBI to communist penetration of our government and the existence and activities of the espionage ring fell on deaf ears, so he used his position at TIME to attempt to warn the American public about the true nature of communism and the goals of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

The Yalta Conference, which took place during February 4-11, 1945, was immediately heralded as foreshadowing a peaceful postwar world order. Chambers, having been in the belly of the beast, knew better. He showed “Ghosts on the Roof” to T.S. Matthews, TIME’s associate executive editor, but doubted thatTIME would publish it. According to Chambers’ biographer Sam Tanenhaus, Matthews showed it toTIME’s owner Henry Luce who called it “a forceful piece of journalism” but was otherwise non-committal on publishing it. Other TIME staffers urged Matthews not to publish the piece fearing that it would poison relations between the wartime allies. With some hesitation, and characterizing it as a “political fairy tale,” Matthews decided to publish it.

Chambers’ story has the ghosts of the murdered Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his family descend on the roof of the Livadia Palace, their former estate and the site where the “big three” allied war leaders negotiated the fate of the world. Clio, the Muse of History, greets them and discusses with Nicholas and Alexandra what just occurred there. Nicholas, the Tsarina remarks, is fascinated by Stalin. “What statesmanship! What vision! What power!,” says Nicholas. “We have known nothing like this since my ancestor, Peter the Great, broke a window into Europe by overrunning the Baltic states in the 18^th century. Stalin has made Russia great again.”

“It all began with the German-Russian partition of Poland,” Chambers has Alexandra say, reminding readers that the Second World War was started by Hitler and Stalin. “Stalin,” says the Tsar, “is magnificent. Greater than Rurik, greater than Peter! . . . Stalin embodies the international social revolution . . . the mighty new device of power politics which he has developed for blowing up other countries from within.” The Royal couple then lists the countries conquered by Stalin—Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland—and those soon to be conquered because of Western appeasement. The Tsarina marvels at Stalin’s ability to persuade Churchill and Roosevelt solve the issues of Central and Eastern Europe to Stalin’s liking in a friendly fashion, remarking that “even peace may be only a tactic of struggle.”

At the end of the tale, the Muse of History foresees the consequences of Yalta as “more wars, more revolutions, greater proscriptions, bloodshed and human misery.” If you can foresee such troubles, the Tsarina asks Clio, why don’t you prevent them. The Muse of History replies that she must leave something for her sister Melpomene, the Muse of Tragedy, to do.

Readers reacted negatively to the piece. TIME’s Moscow correspondent lost his access to Kremlin officials. Chambers, some said, was zealously trying to destroy U.S.-Soviet collaboration that was so essential to world peace. TIME’s own editors noted in a subsequent issue that they did not believe that U.S.-Soviet relations were doomed to failure.

History vindicated Whittaker Chambers. His courageous efforts to reveal the truth about communism and Stalin’s intentions are not unlike the current efforts by writers—several associated with this journal—to alert the United States and the world to the true nature and goals of Islamic jihadists.

In Chambers’ time, the West was confronted by a murderous, expansionist secular totalitarian ideology whose leaders sought a communist world empire. Today, the West is confronted by a murderous, expansionist religion-based totalitarian ideology whose leaders seek a world caliphate where all must submit to Allah or be eradicated.

Chambers’ warnings were largely ignored by Western leaders whose willful blindness to the true nature of communism sealed the fate of millions behind the iron curtain in Europe, in China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere.

Today, perhaps the ghosts of Mehemed II and Sulieman the Magnificent are looking down and smiling as Western leaders fecklessly attempt to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs and search for “root causes” of ISIS terror and aggression. The Muse of History would understand, and her sister Melpomene, unfortunately, still has work to do.

Categories: Communism, Economy, Foreign policy, Human rights, Ideology, Islam, Islamism, Media, Obama, Sharia law, Terrorism
Tags: Communism, Economy, Foreign Policy, human rights, Ideology, Islam, Islamism, Joseph Stalin, Media, Sharia law, Terrorism, Whittaker Chambers

Comments: Be the first to comment

Does Obama Love America or Islam?

February 23, 2015

Does Obama Love America or Islam? Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 23, 2015

Barack Obama

What are the things that Obama is passionate about?

In his first days in office, he signed a number of executive orders. Of his first five orders, three involved Muslim terrorists captured and held in Gitmo. His third executive order was about the “humane” treatment of terrorists. His fourth executive order sought to close Gitmo. Like the man who can’t wait to get away from his wife so he can call his mistress, Obama made his priorities clear from the start.

It took Obama a month to set up the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It took him two days to set up a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition to free Gitmo terrorists.

Obama prioritized helping Muslim terrorists over the economic recovery. Why? Because that was a subject he was passionate about.

People will always prioritize what they are passionate about over what they aren’t. It’s easy to look at a mission shift and see the choice that has been made.

For example, is Obama passionate about space exploration? He told the head of NASA that his “foremost” priority was making Muslims feel good about themselves.

Obama is more passionate about Muslim self-esteem than he is about visiting other planets.

Is he passionate about god and religion? That depends on which god and which religion.

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

Walk into a store and you’ll see piles of red and pink in the Clearance box. Everything from heart-shaped cards and boxes of chocolate candy to plastic flowers and teddy bears clutching plush red hearts will be 50 percent off because Valentine’s Day comes but once a year. And Valentine’s Day is over.

Obama’s love for America also comes but once a year. He tosses it into a speech in the Midwest when his poll numbers are down and then it goes into the clearance box where you can buy his love and his patriotism for 50 percent off. And it’s still expensive at the price because the heart-shaped box is empty.

Greeting card sentiments come easily to the man who will say anything. Obama promised to eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, vowed transparent open government and promised that you could keep your doctor. His words were empty promises.

Love, of a person or of a country, is not judged by what we say. It is judged by what we do.

Every politician with ambition claims to love America. Most only love themselves. Some love other things. No one can know what is it in Obama’s heart, which is why the media’s shrill demands that Scott Walker affirm Obama’s love for America are silly and cynical, but we can certainly follow his passions.

We show our passions in the things that we really care about. We all have our duties and obligations. Obama’s obligations include delivering speeches praising America, occasionally placing his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance (when he can find it) and badly saluting soldiers with a latte cup.

But are these the things he loves and cares about?

We can follow Obama’s passions the way that an adulterer’s trail to his mistress can be followed no matter how many cards or stuffed bears he gives to his wife.

What are the things that Obama is passionate about?

In his first days in office, he signed a number of executive orders. Of his first five orders, three involved Muslim terrorists captured and held in Gitmo. His third executive order was about the “humane” treatment of terrorists. His fourth executive order sought to close Gitmo. Like the man who can’t wait to get away from his wife so he can call his mistress, Obama made his priorities clear from the start.

It took Obama a month to set up the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It took him two days to set up a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition to free Gitmo terrorists.

Obama prioritized helping Muslim terrorists over the economic recovery. Why? Because that was a subject he was passionate about.

People will always prioritize what they are passionate about over what they aren’t. It’s easy to look at a mission shift and see the choice that has been made.

For example, is Obama passionate about space exploration? He told the head of NASA that his “foremost” priority was making Muslims feel good about themselves.

Obama is more passionate about Muslim self-esteem than he is about visiting other planets.

Is he passionate about god and religion? That depends on which god and which religion.

Obama left out “Under God” when reciting the Gettysburg Address. The DNC’s platform initially left out “God” and booed the reinsertion. Obama’s invocation at his inauguration also dropped “Under God”.

However Obama cheerfully recited “Allahu Akbar”, the opening of the Islamic supremacist call to prayer, and called it “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.” He had a man jailed for making a YouTube video attacking Mohammed and blamed him for Muslim acts of terror against America.

Obama’s religious beliefs, such as they are, remain locked in his head. But there is only one religion that he is passionate enough to protect by imprisoning those who blaspheme against it.

He may botch salutes and the pledge of allegiance, but he has retained the ability to chant “Allahu Akbar” with a “first-rate accent”.

He may think that the “good book” says “don’t throw stones in glass houses”, but he accurately quotes the Koran. The things that we remember are the ones that we really care about.

Obama has an obligation to reference the Gettysburg Address, to wait out the pledge of allegiance and to praise America. He has no obligation to quote the Koran or chant “Allahu Akbar”. These are things that he does because he wants to do them. They are the things that he is actually passionate about.

Does he love them more than he loves America? No one can know what is in another person’s heart.

There are married couples who have lived together for decades only to discover that the love of their life had been cheating on them all along. And who is to say that the adulterer doesn’t love? We can’t pass a final verdict on his feelings. But we can know his faithlessness by his deeds.

We can say of him and of Obama that they broke faith with the covenant that they had entered into. We can say that they betrayed those who trusted them, lied to them, used and abused them, and then feigned outrage when their actions were questioned.

Can the media’s furious talking heads denouncing Giuliani deny that Obama lied to Americans? Can they deny that he harmed them? Can they deny that he refused to take responsibility for his actions?

The facts are clear. Only the interpretation is in doubt. And the interpretation is what we are debating.

Does Obama lie to Americans because he loves them? Does he weaken America abroad because he loves it? And if Obama loves America, what does he love about it and how does he show that love? Does he love the Constitution? If he did, he wouldn’t constantly violate it. Does he love Americans? Which Americans? The ones whose health plans he took away for ObamaCare or the ones whose jobs he took away to legalize illegal aliens? The ones whose votes and wishes he ignores and snidely mocks?

Is it the Americans who no longer believe in the future under his rule that he loves? Is it the unemployed Americans he loves? Is it the Americans he jailed under his new laws and regulations that he loves?

If Obama loves Americans, then it’s a clear case of hurting the ones you love.

And if Obama doesn’t love Americans, what America does he love; the rock band or the Walt Whitman poem, the town America in the Netherlands or the Neil Diamond song?

Questioning Obama’s love for America is alleged to be unacceptable gutter politics, but accusing his critics of being racists is a standard debating tactic for those same outraged media talking heads.

It wasn’t gutter politics when Obama claimed that the national debt under Bush was “unpatriotic”. Is Obama at least as “unpatriotic” for increasing the debt by 70 percent? Is it possible that his spending spree proves that he doesn’t love America? Or is indebting our children the way that he shows his love?

Can we question the patriotism of a man who frees terrorists or only of a man who locks them up?

Is asking whether Obama loves America an unacceptable question because the answer is obvious or because it isn’t?

Obama will go on making speeches in which he claims to love America while making the country poorer, more dangerous and weaker. He will also go on making speeches praising Islam while increasing the power, influence and wealth of Muslims in America and around the world.

As the clearance box after Valentine’s Day shows, anyone can buy a card or a teddy bear. It’s the actions that count. It’s not what we say that shows love. It’s what we do that shows what we truly care about.

Categories: Foreign policy, Human rights, Islam, Obama
Tags: Foreign Policy, human rights, Islam

Comments: 1 Comment

Hero of the Middle East: Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

February 23, 2015

Hero of the Middle East: Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, The Gatestone Institute, Bassam Tawil, February 23, 2015

(Please see also Obama kept reform Muslims out of summit on extremism. — DM)

The courageous, historic speech yesterday by the Grand Imam of al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islam, calling for the reform of Islam, was the result of the even more courageous, historic speech delivered a few weeks ago by Egypt’s devoutly Muslim President, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the current American administration’s great friend, is the poison tree whose fruit is the Islamist terrorism embodied by the ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram and others.

Apparently some of the Sunni Arab States have not yet realized that their own national security, and ability to withstand Iran, depend on how strong Egypt is.

It is possible, in fact, that U.S. policy is to weaken the Sunni world seeking to unite under el-Sisi’s flag of modernity. With European complicity, the U.S. Administration is trying to defraud the Arabs and turn the Israel-Palestine conflict into a center of Middle Eastern chaos, in order to hide the nuclear deal they are concocting with Iran.

The treachery of the U.S. Administration is the reason why Egypt’s faith in the United States, which is supposed to defend the Arabs against a nuclear Iran, has effectively evaporated.

And now the greatest American insanity of all time: America and Turkey are arming and training Islamist terrorist operatives in Turkey, on the ground that they are “moderates” opposed to Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. They either ignore or are unaware that there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist terrorist. The other name of the “moderates” opposing Assad is ISIS.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in effect, runs Turkey. According to recent rumors, Turkey is also planning to build a nuclear reactor, “for research and peaceful purposes.”

Sheikh Dr. Ahmed al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islam, yesterday delivered a courageous, historic speech in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, urging reform in religious education to curb extremism in Islam. Al-Tayyeb’s address was the result of an even more courageous and historic speech, delivered a few weeks ago by Egypt’s devoutly Muslim President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, at Al-Azhar University.

El-Sisi’s monumental statement, truly worthy of a Nobel Prize, is having a seismic result. Al-Sisi directed his remarks, about the ills of Islam to Islamic clerics in Egypt and around the world. It was enormously brave of him. He did not single out radical Islam, but he did call on all Muslims to examine themselves, carry out a religious revolution and renew their faith.

El-Sisi, a man of monumental courage, urged Muslims not to behave according to the ancient, destructive interpretations of the Qur’an and Islam that make the rest of the world hate them, destroy Islam’s reputation and put Muslim immigrants to Western countries in the position of having to fight their hosts. He claimed that it is illogical for over a billion Muslims to aspire to conquer and subdue six billion non-Muslims.

949 (1)

Egypt’s President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, delivered a historic speech to top Islamic scholars and clergy at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, December 28, 2014. (Image source: MEMRI)

Islam deals in depth with uniting the Muslim nation (umma) and mutual responsibility among Muslims, as though they were one entity. The Prophet Muhammad (S.A.A.W.) said that every drop of Muslim blood is more precious than the entire Kaaba. Thus the liberty ISIS took upon itself to burn alive a Jordanian pilot and 45 Egyptians, to spread terrorism throughout Syria, Iraq and Egypt and to kill other Muslims in various locations around the globe, claiming they were “infidels,” is heresy in and of itself.

The calls for the deaths of “a million shaheeds” and the killing of Jews for the sake of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, as was done by Arafat in the past, and is being done now by his heirs in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, are a crime; they are extremist incitement that is opposed to the forgiving and compromising spirit of Islam. The murder and terrorism carried out by terrorist organizations such as ISIS, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad [PIJ] and other Islamist organizations against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims is contrary to the modern Islam needed in the contemporary era.

El-Sisi was correct that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sunni ideology, which drives most of the extremist Islamist organizations around the world, preaches forced conversion of “infidels” to Islam at any price, or death. Some of the “infidels” are supposed to join Islam of their own accord(targ’ib), out of self-serving interest, and some not of their own accord (tarhib), out of fear and death threats. Such conversions are also contrary to the original Islam, which states that no one is to be forced to convert to Islam and that a calm religious dialogue should be held.

However, a few days after President el-Sisi’s speech, which attempted to unify Muslims and Christian Copts, the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliated terrorist organizations increased their attacks on Egyptian civilians and security forces throughout Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula, as well as murdering 21 Egyptian Christian Copts in Libya. The Muslim Brotherhood knows that behind the scenes, U.S. President Obama supports the movement, especially the branch in Egypt seeking to overthrow President Sisi. This approval from the U.S. encourages the Muslim Brotherhood to be even more determined to subvert and undermine Egypt’s stability, sabotage its economic rehabilitation and destroy the el-Sisi regime.

In this atmosphere of American support, the Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis terrorist group in the Sinai Peninsula operates under Muslim Brotherhood protection. It recently changed its name to the “Sinai Province” of the Islamic State and swore allegiance to the “Caliph,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It is currently working hand-in-hand with Hamas in the Gaza Strip to weaken el-Sisi’s Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula.

Other Islamist terrorist organizations also kill Egyptian civilians and security forces with bombs and assault rifles. In the name of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, they indiscriminately attack people on public transport, in airports and in public places, with the intent of retaking control of Egypt.

For this reason, an Egyptian court recently designated Hamas a terrorist organization, along with its military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and outlawed both of them. In response, Qatar, a slippery agent in the service of America but also, treacherously, in the service of Iran, allowed armed Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives to be interviewed by its Al-Jazeera TV. The operatives called the Egyptian president a traitor to the Islamic-Arab cause and to those seeking to “liberate Palestine.”

At the same time, Qatar continues to use its Al-Jazeera TV to broadcast hate propaganda targeting the el-Sisi regime, to disseminate videos and to fabricate insulting quotes intended to cause friction between el-Sisi on one side and the leaders of the Arab world and the Gulf States on the other — and to keep them from giving hungry Egyptians economic aid.

As the date for the economic conference in Sharm el-Sheikh (in the Sinai Peninsula) nears, Al-Jazeera’s propaganda machine has moved into ever-higher gear. Apparently, some of the Sunni Arabs states have not yet realized that their own national security and ability to withstand Iran depend on how strong Egypt is.

The U.S. Administration could easily halt the subversion of Egypt, but not only does it turn a blind eye, it suffers from a peculiar form of ignorance that makes it fight ISIS while at the same time supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, the hothouse of most Islamic terrorist organizations, including ISIS. The damage done to Egypt and the cracks in the weak Sunni Muslim ranks in the Middle East will eventually harm American interests and expose the Gulf States to the increasing Iranian threat.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the current American administration’s great friend, is the poison tree whose fruit is the Islamist terrorism embodied by ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram and others. This linkage has become obvious to all the Arab states, while the U.S. and Europe steadfastly ignore the danger to their own survival, and refuse to outlaw them.

It is possible, in fact, that U.S. policy is to weaken the Sunni world that is seeking to unite under el-Sisi’s flag of modernity. With European complicity, the U.S. Administration is trying to defraud the Arabs and turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a center of Middle Eastern chaos, in order to hide the nuclear deal they are concocting with Iran. That is why the West does not really want to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees by settling them in the Arab states, and why the West continues to nourish false Palestinian hopes that perpetuate this conflict.

The treachery of the U.S. Administration is the reason why Egyptians’ faith in America, which is supposed to defend the Arabs against a nuclear Iran, has effectively evaporated.

In the meantime, Iran’s Houthi proxies have taken over Yemen, threatening the entire Persian Gulf from the south. The el-Sisi regime is currently in the market for new allies, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin recently paid a visit to Egypt to examine the possibilities of building a nuclear reactor, sounding the first chord of a regional nuclear arms race.

The problems of the Middle East begin in the United States: that was the claim of participants in the Al-Jazeera TV show, “From Washington.” They described American policy towards Egypt as hesitant, indecisive and undemocratic. They claimed that the U.S. Administration had not yet decided whether or not to support el-Sisi, who heralded change and the willingness to fight radical Islam (a fight America used to participate in) or to remain neutral and waffle, in view of Egypt’s presumed instability. The Americans seem to be putting their all money on the extreme Islamists, who they seem to think will eventually win the bloody conflict currently being waged in Egypt.

The Americans have forgotten that under Mubarak, the regime turned a blind eye to attacks against Israel that were carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood and their carefully fostered agents. Unfortunately, since el-Sisi was elected, Egypt itself has become a victim of radical Islamic terrorism. The U.S. Administration, however, appears clearly to hate el-Sisi, and seems to be doing its utmost to undermine him and see him thrown out.

Under ousted President Mohamed Morsi, Egypt was tolerant and patient toward the U.S. Administration’s best friends, the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Islamist and Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al-Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all of which set up camp in the Sinai Peninsula. These terrorist groups smuggled weapons in from Iran, Sudan, Libya and Lebanon; dug smuggling and attack tunnels; developed missiles and carried out terrorist attacks “only” against Israel, the current U.S. Administration’s other apparent enemy, even though so many American Jews foolishly voted for them.

Now those same Islamist and Palestinian terrorist organizations are striking a mortal blow to the security or Egypt, and killing its civilians and security personnel.

The Muslim Brotherhood, mindful of America’s pro-Islamist policy toward it, is deliberately indulging in a wave of terrorism in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. Muslim Brotherhood operatives there are targeting civilians, public transport, airports and natural gas pipelines, all to undermine Egypt’s internal security and bring down el-Sisi’s regime in favor of extremist Islamists and a nuclear-threshold Iran.

In the current international situation, the U.S. Administration has apparently finally cut a deal with Turkey — which will be flimsy and ethereal — that allows Turkey to do the only thing it really cares about: to bring down the regime of Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. is also trying to cut a deal with Qatar, which along with Turkey openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist proxies in Egypt, Gaza, Syria and Iraq, who in general work against Western interests.

The ironic result is that Turkey plays host to both NATO and senior Hamas figures, while it deliberately ignores the slaughter by ISIS of Kurds and other ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood, in effect, actually rules Turkey. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP party make it easy for foreign fighters to cross the Turkish border into Syria and join the ranks of ISIS. Meanwhile, the Turkish government wages a diversionary propaganda war against Israel. According to recent rumors, Turkey is also planning to build a nuclear reactor, “for research and peaceful purposes.”

Another surreal result is that Qatar hosts the U.S. military bases, while it finances and encourages terrorist organizations operating against Israel and the Egypt. It also panders to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual mentor of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist terrorist who issues fatwas permitting the murder of civilians and approves death sentences for apostasy.

And now the greatest American insanity of all time: the U.S. and Turkey are arming and training Islamist terrorist operatives in Turkey, on the grounds that they are “moderates” opposed to Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. They either ignore or are not aware that there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist terrorist.

The other name of the “moderates” opposing Bashar Assad is ISIS; Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah are now even saying that the U.S. is arming ISIS.

In the meantime, the Egyptian army continues its struggle against Islamist terrorist targets in the Sinai Peninsula and Libya, unaided, and even undermined, by the U.S.

In view of the U.S. Administration’s collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip, I am persuaded that in the near future it will be possible to find a joint Egyptian-Israeli-Palestinian formula for eradicating the Hamas-PIJ enclave of terrorism, this time by Arabs.

Most ironically of all, in the shadow of American zigzagging, a joint Arab-Israeli front is developing against Sunni and Shi’ite radicalism, and the Palestinians can only profit from it. Thus el-Sisi, who, with towering vision and courage, dares to speak openly about the poison tree of radical Islam and its fruit, when others are afraid, is a truly great Islamic hero.

Categories: Egypt, Foreign policy, Free world, Funding terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, Human rights, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Israel, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Shia, Siani, Sisi, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, Terrorists, Turkey
Tags: Egypt, Foreign Policy, Free world, Funding terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, human rights, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Israel, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Shia, Siani, Sisi, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, Terrorists, Turkey

Comments: 1 Comment

Humor: Organizing for Action will help lead Obama’s war on violent extremism

February 19, 2015

Organizing for Action will help lead Obama’s war on violent extremism, Dan Miller’s Blog, Senator Ima Librul, imaginary guest author, and Dan Miller, February 19,2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and those of my (imaginary) guest author, Senator Ima Librul. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)

Editor’s note: This is another post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of ~~Confusion~~ Utopia. He is a founding member of CCCEB (Climate Change Causes Everything Bad), a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee.

Senator Librul is also justly proud of his expertise in interfaith dialogue, on the basis of which he has explained to the entire world that Islam is the religion of peace, grossly distorted by the non-Islamic Islamic State and other textual deviants. He was recently awarded the Obama Foundation’s cherished award for exemplary political correctness on the basis of his interfaith outreach. We are ~~humiliated~~ honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article.

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

The Non-Islamic Islamic State and its equally non-Islamic cohorts can be defeated only through the heroic efforts of community organizers: they are needed to help members and potential recruits find jobs and happiness. Our Dear Leader Obama cannot do everything Himself, even with His pen and His phone.

A spokesperson for the State Department recently announced that murdering affiliates of the non-Islamic State and other violent non-Islamic organizations will not end violent extremism. Instead compassion, particularly in providing suitable jobs and pathways to happiness and ultimately to true enlightenment, are needed.

Our Dear Leader is working tirelessly on just that, but even He needs help.

CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood

Many violent right wing terrorists — substantial numbers of them extremist Christians and Jews — have complained that our Dear Leader has sought help from benign Islamic organizations, such as the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, to help win His war on violent extremism. Those organizations, and their members, have been among the victims of violent Islamophobia for years. Along with their successful efforts to organize Muslim communities, they have begun to emulate our Dear Leader in dealing with the curse of Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is the worst threat (other than climate change) now facing humanity and can cause even peaceful but depressed Muslims to become violent; even to become extremists. It can also enrage others, who also claim to be Islamic but are not, to intensify their violent extremism. Similarly, falsely characterizing violent extremists as Islamic gives them a false patina of legitimacy and encourages poor, ignorant ~~savages~~ Muslims to accept them as truly Islamic and hence to join them. That is among the reasons why our Dear Leader has steadfastly refused to do so.

CAIR, various Muslim Brotherhood affiliates and Organizing for Action are joining with our Dear Leader to fight on our behalf. We already know that CAIR is dedicated to thwarting Islamophobes who falsely accuse Islam of being violent and that the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated only to promoting true brotherhood for all. Hence, the focus of this article will be on Organizing for Action.

Organizing for Action

The membership of this highly valued organization is diverse, but many members have been involved since early childhood. The following video is so inspiring that I find myself in tears every morning when I watch it to give me the strength I need to continue my fight against all evil forces.

As they and other kindred spirits have matured, their devotion to our Dear Leader has increased. They are now, and will continue to be, at the forefront of Organizing for Action. They applaud His righteous stand against Islamophobia and will now extend their efforts beyond ~~what little is left of~~ the Obama Nation’s borders to bring peace and understanding to those most in need.

The Non-Islamic State and its non-Islamic cohorts have mistakenly taken refuge in grossly distorted perceptions of Islam to justify their senseless, random violence. Only by awakening their adherents to the need to promote social justice, social progress and community service will they be led to the proper understanding of the Religion of Peace. The best way to accomplish this is by teaching them useful skills — vegan cookery, nursing, barbering, knife sharpening, business management, computer programming and Islamic sign language, for example. As they become increasingly aware of the benefits these skills will provide to them and to others, they will support their own governments in providing freedom, security, prosperity and health care for all. Free, or at least affordable, government mandated health care for all will come to be seen as their most urgent need. They will also gain the skills needed to implement their own versions of health care. No longer poor, sick and depressed they will become our friends.

Although fluency in the use of Islamic sign language will be very important, most Organizing for Action volunteers have not learned much Arabic. Sign language is easier, and our Dear Leader Himself will provide much of the necessary instruction. Here is a recent photo of Him expressing His vision of true Islamic peace to ~~other~~ Islamic leaders.

Here is a close up of His beautiful gesture:

Here is a photo of random Muslims returning His gesture of peace that passeth all understanding:

Although our Dear Leader has tried to use similar but different sign language in dealing with His disloyal opposition — violent right wing tea party terrorists all — they have rejected His conciliatory efforts.

We are truly blessed to have Dear Leader Obama in charge of our national destiny; all patriotic Americans must give Him their unstinting support. He is the way, the truth and the light unto all ages; all who oppose Him must convert or be silenced.

Editor’s comments:

Senator Librul has done a masterful job of presenting his and Obama’s views of Islam and how best to deal with it. Absurd, but that’s their custom.

In the following video, Pat Condell explains a big factor in Muslim unemployment:

Would better job skills ameliorate any of these problems?

As observed in a February 18th Wall Street Journal article titled The radicals are waging a war of ideas the West refuses to fight,

Above all, we need to recognize that the strength of radical Islamists is directly correlated to their battlefield success, and the growing perception that they are the strong horse against moderate Muslim leaders. Communist ideology lost its appeal when it was seen to fail against the prosperity and freedom of the West. Islamic State will lose its allure when it is defeated and humiliated in the arena it cares about most, which is the battlefield. Mr. Obama and other Western leaders must summon the will to win the war on the ground, or they will find themselves in permanent retreat in the war of ideas. [Emphasis added.]

After we and our allies had defeated Nazi Germany and Japan militarily, we tried to rebuild them substantially in our own image. Recognizing that Russia had been, at best, a temporary ally of convenience, and that our real allies lacked the necessary resources, we alone rebuilt Japan. The decision to exclude Russia — which wanted to “help” — from Japan was General MacArthur’s baby. Our reconstruction of Japan was far more successful than the reconstruction of Germany, which became Communist East and democratic West Germany. The points are, (1) first defeat them militarily and only then help them to recover and prosper; (2) don’t allow our enemies to “help.”

Islam is itself “extreme.” It is based on the Hadith, Sharia law and the Koran as Allah “dictated” it to Mohamed as he became a powerful warlord. Since Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of Allah, only Allah can change or interpret it. Not even Obama can do it. Hence, under the doctrine of abrogation, Allah’s later words rejected and displaced earlier conciliatory and contradictory passages, which therefore warrant no Muslim adherence. Nor is Islamic violence “random” or “senseless.” It is directed, purposefully, against those viewed as its enemies — non-Islamists and other Islamists of different brands. Until those in control of western governments realize at least these three points — and behave accordingly — we will continue to lose the battle against Islam.

Truly secular Muslims are not a significant part of the root problem; religious Muslims are. Yet Obama’s convocation of Muslim leaders includes few if any secular Muslims. By proclaiming that the Islamic State and its cohorts in their war against what’s left of Western civilization are not Islamic, Obama will not precipitate an Islamic reformation. Similarly, no matter how often I may state that my stallion is a mare, I will not succeed in milking it; at best, I will only irritate it. More likely it will try to kill me; if I persist, it may well succeed. On balance, I need to reject any notion that I can milk my stallion and recognize it for what it is.

Senator Librul maintains that Islam is the religion of peace. It is, in its own way. Islamic peace comes through submission to whatever brand of Islam is in power; without submission there is no peace. Leaving aside the problems this presents for Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims, the various brands of Islam are hostile to each other and seek submission of those others through violence. Until, if ever, non-secular Muslims become secular or cease to exist that problem will persist. Nothing in Obama’s “war on violent extremism” is calculated, or likely, to achieve that end– even assuming that that is what He wants to happen.

UPDATE, with a hat tip to Iburt at Counter Jihad Report.

Categories: Blasphemy, Caliphate, Christians, Foreign policy, Freedom, Hadith, Heresy, Human rights, Humor, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jews, Koran, Leftists, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis, Obama, Pat Condell, Political correctness, Random acts, Sharia law, Terrorists, Violent extremism
Tags: Blasphemy, Caliphate, Christians, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Hadith, human rights, Humor, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Islamophobia, Jews, Koran, Leftists, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis, Organizing for Action, Pat Condell, Political correctness, Random acts, Sharia law, Terrorists, Violent extremism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama defends Islam at all cost

February 18, 2015

Obama defends Islam at all cost, American Thinker, Carol Brown, February 18, 2015

Think about it. Have you ever heard Obama criticize Islam? I never have.

[W]hen three individuals who were Muslim were recently shot in North Carolina in a crime that local police have not identified as a hate crime, Obama stated: “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.”

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

How President Obama responds to events around him appears to be dictated by a highly specific set of rules, all of which fall within under broad umbrella of disdain for America. In this way, every word he speaks (and those he refuses to say) and every action he takes (as well as those he avoids) unfolds in a predictable, if not also menacing manner.

Demonize the wealthy. (Unless the wealthy person is a Democratic Party supporter.)
Blame white people and the United States for bad things that have happened, are happening, and may happen to black people. (Unless a black person is the victim of jihad, in which case Obama will not use the event to stoke racial hatred. Protecting Islam trumps the chip on his shoulder regarding black victimhood.)
Defend Islam while never defending any other religion. Toward that end, denigration of Christians and/or Jews is permitted.

It seems like a long time ago that Colleen Hufford was the victim of a savage jihadist attack when a devout Muslim sliced off her head. But it was just a few months ago. And if you recall, after the attack Obama had no comment. None.

At least not about Colleen Hufford. Or jihad. He did, however, have a comment that was so important the message was hand-delivered and read aloud to members of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City where Obama expressed his sympathy for what a rough month the Muslim community had following the attack while offering thanks to all of them.

Beyond that, Obama remained silent on the matter, deferring to the FBI.

Of course he did not follow that script after Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson. Oh no. Obama, Eric Holder, and all the rest weighed in immediately and kept weighing for what seemed like forever.

Standard operating procedure for the Obama administration – something we saw on full display when earlier this month Jen Psaki would not say that the terror attack that killed four Jews at a kosher market in France was an act of anti-Semitism. Instead, the administration claimed the entire affair was random and deferred to French authorities to determine the pesky details of motive and truth.

Once again, just as the administration deferred to the FBI after Hufford was slain, they deferred to some other party – in this case the French authorities. And this may well sound official to those who lack critical thinking. It may even come across as sound, wise, appropriate, and even presidential.

But of course it’s all hogwash. The knee jerk over-reaction to certain things, the under-reaction to other things, and the distraction techniques they employ are all by design.

And the design was crystal clear when, earlier this month, as part of Obama’s desperate drive to absolve Islam of any responsibility for the murderous brutality that is unfolding around the world, he had the audacity to say that the media overstates the threat of terrorism. He accused the media of exploiting terrorism because “if it bleeds, it leads.”

He spoke as if referring to ambulance chasing coverage by a tabloid magazine. It was appalling to realize this man-child was talking about coverage of genocide. Of institutionalized kidnapping, rape, torture, and all manner of barbarity under the banner of the religion he seems to love so very dearly.

Depraved does not even begin to describe Obama’s words.

When reality does not fit his script, there is no depth to which he will not sink. We have seen this play out over and over again. His determination to turn the public eye away from the awful truth before us is relentless.

It is sick. And it feels sick to be exposed to it, to him, and the abject evil he seems to embody.

This sickness has been playing out for years, though with two years left to his presidency, Obama seems to be pulling out all the stops as he utilizes a variety of ways to defend Islam. Including when he does and does not jump to conclusions.

As Daniel Greenfield recently wrote in Front Page Magazine: “When Muslims kill Americans, then Obama is all about not jumping to conclusions.”

Greenfield noted that after the Boston Marathon bombing Obama stated: “We still do not know who did this or why and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before they have all the facts.” And after the Fort Hood massacre, Obama stated: “We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” And yet, when three individuals who were Muslim were recently shot in North Carolina in a crime that local police have not identified as a hate crime, Obama stated: “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.”

Then, last week, ISIS beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya. And just as Obama refused to acknowledge that four Jews who were murdered in the kosher market in Paris were targeted because they were Jews, Obama refused to identify the faith of the victims in Libya, as if they were targeted because they were Egyptian. The full statement put out by the White House reads:

The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity. This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL.

This heinous act once again underscores the urgent need for a political resolution to the conflict in Libya, the continuation of which only benefits terrorist groups, including ISIL. We call on all Libyans to strongly reject this and all acts of terrorism and to unite in the face of this shared and growing threat. We continue to strongly support the efforts of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon to facilitate formation of a national unity government and help foster a political solution in Libya.

“Twenty-one Egyptian citizens.” Never mind that the video ISIS made of the barbaric murders identified the victims by their faith. Per a report at Reuters:

A caption on the five-minute video read: “The people of the cross, followers of the hostile Egyptian church.” Before the killings, one of the militants stood with a knife in his hand and said: “Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for.”

(“Crusaders.” Where have I heard that reference in the recent past?)

Obama’s omission of the victims’ religion was not the only glaring confirmation of the nature of the man-child in the oval office. His statement that ISIS “is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity” was also telling since ISIS is absolutely constrained by (and motivated by) faith: the Islamic faith.

Once again, Obama used words (those said and those not said) to suggest that the daily jihadist bloodbath is some mysterious, amorphous, inexplicable horror. And in this way, he defends Islam by not implicating it in any of the hell on earth we are bearing witness to.

Think about it. Have you ever heard Obama criticize Islam? I never have.

Col. Ralph Peters had a pointed comment on this very thing recently when he said: “Look at the facts. The only religion this president is willing to come out and defend is Islam.”

It’s so patently obvious. And yet the media scarcely raises the issue.

Meanwhile, when Chris Matthews interviewed State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf Monday, she went on record saying that we can’t win the war by killing ISIS.

Why not? And what, pray tell does she suggest? She suggests that we try to figure out the root cause for why people join ISIS.

OK. That shouldn’t be too hard. Except we’re dealing with the Obama administration, so of course the glaring truth will be avoided at all cost. And so the hypothesis for the root cause is: poverty, lack of jobs, and lack of opportunity.

I have an idea. How about we tell the truth? How about if we say what the root cause is? How about if we point to the Quran and read some relevant excerpts so everyone can connect the dots? And how about if, in addition to identifying the root cause, we also kill as many terrorists as we possibly can?

Every time there is a terror attack, every time the violent teachings of the Quran play out on the world stage, every time the media engages in malpractice by not doing their research and informing the public, and every time the president of the United States defends Islam, the entire world is that much more at risk – each and every one of our lives is put in increased danger.

Whoever would have imagined that the President of the United States would be facilitating terror? And whoever would have imagined that such a person would be elected not once. But twice.

None of this may be news to most readers. But it will likely be news to some. Please help others understand.

May the victims of jihad rest in peace and may their deaths not be in vain.

Categories: Christians, Foreign policy, Freedom, Human rights, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Islamophobia, Middle East, Obama, Terrorism, Terrorists, Violent extremism
Tags: Christians, Foreign Policy, Freedom, human rights, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Islamophobia, Middle East, Terrorism, Terrorists, United States, Violent extremism

Comments: 3 Comments

Archives