Baku. Malahat Najafova – APA. In case a Turkish jet gets shot down by the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system in Syrian airspace, Ankara will regard it as an aggression.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the remarks in a statement to CNN International of the possibility of the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system targeting Turkish warplanes in case they enter Syrian airspace.
Erdogan did not rule out the possibility of such an incident.
“In this case Turkey will be forced to take measures that will certainly not be discussed. And of course it would be an aggression against our rights of sovereignty and it’s the natural right of the state to protect those rights. We do not want to see any escalation of the situation in the region. We do not want to become a party to that. But those who side with Syria and escalate the tension, I think, are the responsible parties to this,” the Turkish president stressed.
Asked whether he saw the moving of the Russian S-400s into western Syria as a threat to Turkey and other coalition members who may be flying sorties in this region, the Turkish president said Russia has been providing military support to Syria since long ago – since the rain of Bashar Al-Assad’s father.
“Russia has sold or given this kind of systems to Syria. It’s impossible to say that this is something new and did not take place last year,” said Erdogan.
President Erdogan’s mistake in shooting down the Russian Su-24 bomber ‘has waived the green light’ for Russia to initiate a ‘no-fly zone’ by deploying additional fighter power and air defense systems in Syria, US columnist Jim W. Dean notes.
The US-led coalition’s recent provocation against the Russo-Syrian counter terrorism campaign has “put nothing but torpedoes into its own sinking international credibility,” according to US columnist and managing editor for Veterans Today Jim W. Dean.
Dean stresses that the destruction of the ISIL oil tanker fleet, which NATO had been “somehow” unable to detect for over a year, has predictably prompted outrage from those who have long been benefitting from the illicit oil trade.
We suspected the tanker-crushing move would make the people who had been marketing ISIL’s oil, the Kurds and Turkey, unhappy enough to be provoked into a blunder themselves. We did not have to wait long, with the militarily-senseless shooting down of the Russian SU-24 bomber by the Turkish F-16s,” Dean narrates in his recent article for New Eastern Outlook.
The US columnist emphasizes that it is obvious that Turkey would never dare to carry out such a provocation “without clearing it with the US and NATO, as they would be dragged into anyway.”
Turkish reports that they knew nothing about the origin of the Su-24 bomber jet sound completely unconvincing.
“Did they expect us to believe that their radar was not working, nor the US-coalition drones or spy satellites that monitor the Syria-Iraqi battlefield 24/7?” Dean asks with a trace of irony.
However, NATO with Secretary General Stoltenberg has supported Turkey. Still, there were a number of NATO envoys who expressed their concerns regarding the matter. They pointed to the fact that Turkey did not make attempts to escort the Russian bomber out of its airspace.
The Turkish claim that the Russian plane had entered the country’s airspace has fallen apart at the seams since Russia presented the recording of their air combat radar plotting maps.
“They showed the Russian planes flying near the border, and the Turkish planes making their attack runs south, which actually took the Turks into Syria,” Dean underscores.
The whole incident looks very fishy: the Turkish provocation has triggered justified suspicions among European lawmakers. Some of them have gone even so far as to blame Ankara for collaboration with ISIL, the US columnist notes.
Still, Turkey’s provocation has not worked: the Kremlin immediately disavowed any hints of a military response, Dean emphasizes.
Instead, Russia has deployed its advanced S-400 Triumf air defense system with the capability of hitting targets at ranges of up to 400 kilometers to Hmeymim air base in Syria. Furthermore, Russia’s Moskva 11,500-ton warship has reached the shores of Syria in order to ensure the security of Russian aircraft in the region.
Interestingly enough, the Turkish Hurriyet media outlet reported Friday that “the Turkish army has suspended flights over Syria as part of an ongoing joint military campaign with the United States against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) after it shot down a Russian jetfighter.”
Turkey used its last ‘freebie’ by shooting the Russian plane down. There will be no Western coalition no-fly zone in northern Syria, for which some Senators and presidential candidate crazies were trying to get headlines advocating; at least not the kind they wanted,” Dean points out.
Now, Russia can create a “defensive bubble” over Syria. Moscow does not want to do this, he notes, but it has been forced to. Russia has repeatedly made attempts to form a real coalition with Western countries and their partners in order to smash ISIL, but the West turned a deaf ear to its proposal.
“Erdogan’s mistake in shooting the bomber down has waived the green flag for Putin to bring in enough fighter power for the Syrian coalition to initiate a no-fly zone on any uninvited airstrikes anywhere inside Syrian if attacks on Russian planes were continue,” the US columnist emphasizes.
“Instead of bombing Raqqah, France should be bombing Molenbeek.” — Eric Zemmour, French journalist.
No one, at least outside Belgium, is talking about Molenbeek’s long-time anti-Semitic mayor and the alliance with radical Islamists that secured his power.
The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size — an astounding concentration.
“[T]here are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca.” — Resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner.
The many shops run by Jews suddenly disappeared in 2008 after harassment and threats by local “youths.” How did Mayor Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the “right to diversity.”
It is supposed to be Israel’s fault when the Arabs of Belgium — and especially those of Molenbeek — have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party.
The Molenbeek district of Brussels is considered Europe’s “terrorist factory.” At least three of the perpetrators of the November terrorist attacks in Paris came from there: Ibrahim Abdeslam, Abdelhamid Abaaoud and the remaining fugitive Salah Abdeslam. The list does not stop there. The Viennese daily newspaper “Die Presse” writes:
“Molenbeek already made headlines for the first time in 2001: Abdessatar Dahmane, the murderer of the Afghan war hero and horror of the Taliban, Ahmed Schah Massoud, was also a regular at the Islamic center at 18 Rue du Manchester, known for its radical views; as well as Hassan El Haski, who was presumed behind the attacks in Casablanca (41 dead in 2003) and Madrid (200 victims in 2004). The weapons that were used in the attacks on the French satirical paper “Charlie Hebdo” in January 2015 came from Molenbeek. The French jihadist Mehdi Nemouche, who caused a bloodbath in the Brussels Jewish Museum the previous year, lived here. In August 2015, Ayoub El Khazzani started out from here on his attempt to attack a train from Amsterdam to Paris.”
The two jihadists killed by Belgian police in January, in Verviers, came from Molenbeek. The terrorist Amedy Coulibaly, who attacked the HyperCacher kosher supermarket in Paris, also spent time in Molenbeek.
The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size — an astounding concentration. Belgium is, in relation to the size of its population, the greatest European exporter of fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Most of them — at least 48 — come from Molenbeek. “Instead of bombing Raqqah,” says the French journalist Eric Zemmour, “France should be bombing Molenbeek.”
More than half the population of Molenbeek is Muslim; a quarter come from Morocco — such as the Paris attackers. “You know, there are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca,” says a resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner of the French news portal “Atlantico.” Gaetner does consider that “surely an exaggeration,” but admits: “When one walks the streets of this Brussels district, with its nearly 96,000 residents, one is overcome by a bizarre impression. Not only would you think you were no longer in the Kingdom of Belgium, but an oppressive atmosphere reigns here.”
Foreign reporters are only now discovering Molenbeek. Those who have to live there have been complaining about the conditions there for a long time. The following excerpt is from a report by the Belgian weekly magazine Le Vif L’Express from 2011:
Buildings in danger of collapsing, street corners that are becoming landfills, a parked car rusts away in a parking lot: Urban renewal would be helpful here. “This is a gangster district. Here you get beat up for five Euros,” says Karim. The shopkeeper is not happy. He talks about how he recently chased a teenager with a knife in his hand, who had stolen cigarettes. This scene took place just steps away from the Ribaucourt subway station. “The Rue Piers is not safe at this hour,” says a young woman, who after 6pm either makes sure she is accompanied home, or else takes a taxi. She has been living with friends in an apartment in the district for three years. The apartment is large, and not too expensive. “But I am always vigilant,” she says. Especially when she is wearing a skirt. “Insults, spitting, groping: I have experienced that.” Other residents are moving out. “My house was burglarized twice within one year,” says a witness. “When I go to the supermarket around the corner, I double-lock the door and turn on the alarm.”
Testimonials to a city in fear. Much of the responsibility for this apparently rests with Philippe Moureaux, member of the Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste), who was mayor of Molenbeek from 1992 until 2012. Confronted with the complaints of his citizens, he regularly denied the unsustainable conditions in his town: “It makes me angry when people pick out tiny details and lie about them,” he said in the quoted report. Molenbeek is “not the Bronx;” the problems with criminality only concern a small number of streets, said Moureaux.
Then Moureaux showed his true colors: “Molenbeek is a symbol that certain people want to destroy. But only over my dead body.” Certain people? Does the mayor actually believe in a conspiracy against his district of misery? One does not have to search for long to realize that Moureaux, on whose initiative Belgium passed an “anti-racism law” in 1981, is an anti-Semite — not exactly common even in Belgium. At the same time, he downplays and supports the violence of young Muslims — also against Jews.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), suspected by French authorities of masterminding this month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, is — like many terrorists in Europe — from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux (right) was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.
There was heavy rioting in 2009 during Ramadan in Molenbeek. Muslim youths set up barricades made of burning tires, set cars ablaze, threw rocks at firefighters who came to put out fires and, equipped with rocks and crowbars, looted stores. According to unconfirmed reports, the police received the following order: “Do not provoke them, do not search them, do not intervene, even if dozens of them come together, do not issue warnings for harassment, not even if they throw rocks at you.”
Jewish shop-owners were also harassed other than at Ramadan. In 2008, the Flemish magazine Dag Allemaalreported on “youths” yelling, “The Jews are our worst enemies,” in the streets of Molenbeek. There used be many stores run by Jews on the Rue du Prado and the Chaussée de Grand in Molenbeek, but in 2008, with the exception of one furniture store, they suddenly disappeared. And nobody seemed bothered by this, especially not Mayor Moureaux.
None of the Jews wanted to speak with the Dag Allemaal reporter, out of fear of reprisals. The one exception was a man whom the paper referred to as “René.” René ran a barbershop for over 30 years in the Chaussée de Gand. Then came a series of acts of violence. It began with graffiti on his shop’s windows: “Sale youpin” (“dirty Jew”) and other anti-Semitic slogans. Later on, six Muslim youths stormed into his shop, destroyed the furnishings and punched René in the face. He called the police. An hour later, the youths returned in order to “punish” him; they broke all the mirrors. For more than 35 years, René had built up a large and loyal customer base, but after this attack, most people were afraid to visit his shop. He had no other choice but to close it.
How did Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the “right to diversity.” That is what he said in 2008, in the weekly paper Le Vif L’Express. It was a report with the title: “Enquête Moureaux, Shérif de Molenbeek, drogué du pouvoir – Son islamo-municipalisme” (“The Moureaux Investigation: Sheriff of Molenbeek, addicted to power — His Islamo-municipalism”). That he was “addicted to power” (“drogué du pouvoir”) were his own words. The paper described him as a “soaring intellectual, university professor and brilliant minister, who resides in the beautiful Uccle district.”
But back to Moureaux’s Jews: At 20 years old, Moureaux was a Marxist, he said, and never accepted anybody’s right to diversity; but he “evolved”: “What changed my mind were talks with the representatives of the Jewish community. It saddens me today to see how they deny the Muslims the right to diversity.”
This “right to diversity” was not granted to citizens by Moureaux during Ramadan. In a press release with the title, “Ramadan regulations for everyone,” Moureaux appealed to citizens in August 2011 to stop driving into the center of Molenbeek in the afternoon during the month of Ramadan, because Muslims are doing their shopping there.
In January 2015, after the massacre of the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the murder of four Jews in Paris’s HyperCacher supermarket, the now-retired mayor gave an interview to Maghreb TV, a channel broadcast via the internet, the target audience for which is North Africans in Belgium. After he made an appeal not to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few terrorists, it got wild:
“Many have an interest in dividing us. … Unfortunately, these people can be found everywhere. There is a contagion of the problems of the Middle East, in the Near East, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which leads to some having an interest in provoking local disagreements, like a reflex to what happens over there. … It will be said that it is coming from both sides. But it is obvious that they are trying to create hatred for Arabs here in the West, in order to justify the policies of the state of Israel, policies that appear unacceptable to me.”
It is supposed to be Israel’s fault when the Arabs of Belgium — and especially those of Molenbeek — have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party. In March 2013, the Socialists of Molenbeek issued an invitation to an event titled: “What if we freely and calmly spoke about Zionism?” On the invitation flyer was an anti-Semitic caricature, drawn in the style of Der Stürmer, by the Arabic neo-Nazi “Zéon.” After loud protests, the Socialists cancelled the event — on the grounds that the aspired-to “calm” discussion was unfortunately no longer possible.
Many examples can be listed to show what an anti-Semitic environment prevails in Molenbeek. In the official town magazine, “Molenbeek Info,” one can find a text in which the Stalinist Party of Work calls for a celebration in honor of Dr. Hanne Bosselaers, who had just returned from Gaza: “Everybody come!” In Molenbeek, you need to know, there is a hospital run by Stalinists under the name “Medicine for the People” (“Medécine pour le peuple”), which in 2013 initiated a “partnership” with Al-Quds Hospital in Gaza. Consequently, Bosselaers had a lot to talk about. For example: “The Palestinians want us to boycott Israel.”
And what did Dr. Bosselaers have to say about Hamas?
“Behind the attempt of some of our politicians to cast the Palestinian resistance organization in a negative light lies a political goal. Certain circles keep pointing out the “Islamic character” of Hamas, in the hope of keeping the population from forming solidarity with the Palestinians…. The Palestinian resistance is much greater than Hamas, and it is completely up to the Palestinians to decide which form of resistance they choose against their oppressors.”
Welcome to Molenbeek. The jurist Etienne Dujardin recently wrote in the news portal Levif.be that the conditions in Islamist terror districts such as Molenbeek, Verviers or Saint Denis also had something to do with the deliberate efforts of some politicians, who find welcome campaign workers in radical Islamic circles:
“[p]arties have been practicing a form of cronyism based on elections; they all used the same radical mosques as mouthpieces for their election campaigns. Some saw them as a massive pool of easily available votes.”
And that is how it seems Mayor Moureaux observed that he could personally profit from the transformation of Molenbeek into a bastion of jihad. As he himself lives in a wealthy district, he was able to reject with great arrogance citizens who complained about excessive crime. He won elections by catering to radical Islam. Once again, the rule is confirmed: If someone agitates against Israel, it is always a symptom of other serious character flaws in that person. Behind the anti-Israel agitation of Moureaux lay a corrupt mayor, who only cared for his office and his income; who, as he himself said, was “addicted to power.” That his town was transforming into a hell of criminality, anti-Semitism and Sharia, he either did not care about or actually welcomed. Those who fled from Molenbeek could no longer participate; and those who moved there liked what Moureaux was doing: encouraging Islamization and agitating against Israel and Jews. This is how Molenbeek became, during the term in office of just one man, what it is today.
Originally published in German in slightly different form by Audiatur Online.
US Says Turkey Downed Russian Jet While in Syrian Airspace If US officials are correct, Turkey committed a textbook war crime by shooting down a plane that was operating in Syrian airspace at the invitation of the Syrian government
A brief report by Reuters has completely shattered Ankara’s story of the Russian jet joyriding in its airspace:
The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesdaywas hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The official said that assessment was based on detection of the heat signature of the jet.
Even if we assume that the Russian jet briefly entered Turkish airspace, it would be a clear violation of international law for Turkish fighter jets to attack the plane inside Syria.
What’s puzzling is that it’s highly unlikely that Turkey acted without consent from the United States. Is Washington having second thoughts about this clear provocation?
[This incident] points to an ongoing problem with the Russian operations. They are operating very close to a Turkish border, and they are going after moderate opposition that are supported by not only Turkey but a wide range of countries.
The problem with the “moderate opposition” line is that Reuters reported today that al Qaeda’s Nusra Front operates in the region that was being targeted by Russia during the time of the shoot-down.
Moscow has deployed its newest S-400 air defense missile system to Khmeimim in Syria as part of a security boost following the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey earlier this week.
“In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, today (on Monday) an S-400 air defense missile system has been promptly delivered, deployed and already began combat duty to provide cover for the area around the Russian Khmeimim air base in Syria,” General-Major Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Ministry of Defense spokesman, said.
Commenting on the decision, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said there was previously no need for such measures, because “no-one imagined the Russian aircraft could be in danger. Russia would’ve brought S-400s to Syria a long time ago to protect its warplanes, if it entertained the possibility of a traitorous backstab.”
Putin reiterated, however, that the S-400 systems are not targeting Russia’s partners, “with whom we fight terrorists in Syria together.”
But the downing of the Russian Su-24 bomber by Turkey prompted Russia to “ensure the safety of our aircraft during their operations against IS [and] against terrorists LIH and other terrorist groups via more reliable means,” Defense Ministry spokesman Konahsenkov said in a media briefing.
The S-400 is the most advanced anti-aircraft defense system in Russia, and is unparalleled in the world.
It’s designed to ensure air defense using long- and medium-range missiles that can hit aerial targets, including tactical and strategic aircraft as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, at ranges of up to 400 kilometers.
The system consists of a set of radars, missile launchers and command posts, and is operated solely by the Russian military.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Russian Su-24 was shot down by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet near the Turkish-Syrian border.
One Russian pilot was killed by Syrian rebels while parachuting, with the other one was rescued and delivered to Khmeimim airbase.
Despite claims from Ankara, Moscow maintains that its jet, which crashed in Syria, didn’t violate Turkey’s airspace.
Shortly after the incident, the MoD announced three steps which were to be taken following the attack on the Russian Su-24 bomber, including the provision of aerial cover by fighter jets for every airstrike, the boosting of air defense by deploying guided missile cruisers off the Latakia coast, and suspending all military-to-military contacts with Turkey.
Khmeimim airbase in Latakia, Syria, accommodates Russian Air Force squadrons of Su-27SM and Su-30 fighter jets, Su-34 and Su-24 tactical bombers, which are all taking part in airstrikes on Islamic State and other terror groups in the country.
The airbase is protected by state-of-the-art air defense systems and radars. Khmeimim also has a fully operational unit for maintaining fixed- and rotor-wing aircraft and providing logistical assistance to pilots.
(Mr. Greenfield seems to have missed at least one significant problem. As reported at Investors.com on November 17th, the UNHCR
is working “hand in hand” with an international Islamist group of 57 Muslim nations — the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — whose founding charter seeks to propagate “legitimate jihad” and “the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.” Saudi-based OIC, in fact, is tied to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. [Emphasis added.]
“We are delighted to work … with the OIC,” said U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres.
So it’s really the U.N. and radical Islamists who are choosing your new Muslim neighbors.
What could possibly go wrong? — DM)
The official talking points about vetting so-called Syrian refugees, mainly Muslims from UN camps, a population that mostly excludes actual refugees, Christians, Yazidis, etc, talk about how “multi-layered” the vetting is.
Here’s John Kerry laying out the process.
First, many candidates for refugee resettlement in the United States are interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to determine whether they meet the definition of refugee…
In the interview, UNHCR identifies any red flags which would render individuals ineligible for resettlement under our laws and security protocols. UNHCR also screens applicants to determine whether they fall within the priorities the United States has established for resettlement those refugees who are deemed most vulnerable.
This means that we outsource our refugee policy to the UN and also the first layer of security screening. UNHCR is both notoriously corrupt and incompetent.
Obama Inc and its media allies try to pretend that we have a more reliable security screening policy than Europe does, but they both begin in the same place, with the overburdened disastrous UNHCR.
But it gets even better…
Second, a refugee applicant is referred by the UNHCR to the United States along with a package of information. At that point, the State Department takes over the process. Resettlement support centers, operated by faith-based and international organizations contracting with the State Department, first interview the applicant to confirm information about the case and collect any identification documents and aliases used by the refugee applicants and initiate security checks, which are exclusively conducted by the US. Government.
When the State Department takes over the process, Kerry means that the next stage gets outsourced to contractors who get paid money every time they resettle a refugee. These groups obsessively lobby for more refugees. They have a basic conflict of interest here… and yet they and UNHCR are the original sources of information used for the vetting.
Whatever interviews happen next, UNHCR and the resettlers have already given the applicant a script to follow, shown him what questions will be asked and helped prep him for them.
Neither organization is looking for “red flags” or has security concerns. Their priority is to move the settler further down the road.
Next, cue the databases.
For every single refugee applicant, the Department of State conducts biographic checks of the refugee?s primary name and any aliases against its Consular Lookout and Support System database (CLASS).
I sure hope we have the right name and the right spelling. If we don’t, the system is useless. If he’s not in the system, which the majority of members of ISIS, let alone assorted members of Jihadist groups in Syria aren’t, the system is useless.
USCIS collects biometric information, consisting of fingerprints, for each refugee applicant, ages 14 to 79. USCIS coordinates the screening of refugee applicant fingerprints against the vast biometric holdings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s Next Generation Identification system.
That’s really useful for identifying people who have been in trouble with the law before here. But again, the average ISIS member does not have his fingerprints in our database.
At the same time, a team of highly-trained USCIS refugee officers is responsible for personally conducting the refugee status interviews. These officers undergo five weeks of specialized and extensive training that includes comprehensive instruction on all aspects of the job, including refugee law, grounds of inadmissibility, fraud detection and prevention, security protocols, interviewing techniques, credibility analysis, and country conditions research.
Yup. 5 weeks of specialized training.
Our final line of defense, the refugee status interview, the one that unlike the useless UNHCR and the downright destructive resettler interview, is theoretically being conducted by people who have the interests of the United States at heart.
And the folks conducting them have a whole 5 weeks of training in “all aspects of their job”. Somewhere in there they fit in some “country conditions research”. The odds are good this interview will be conducted through an interpreter anyway and a friendly one at that.
But I’m sure the terrorists will just spill that he’s an ISIS member to the guy or gal who has 5 weeks of training in refugee law. Still wait… there’s an extra bonus week of training.
Officers conducting interviews of Syrian applicants now undergo an additional one-week training focusing on Syria-specific topics, including classified intelligence briefings.
That’s right. 1 whole extra week of extensive coffee breaks and snoozing through somebody mispronouncing Al-Nusra Front. What more do you people want?
Fourth, before an approved refugee arrives in the United States, US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at DHS receives a manifest of all refugees who have prior approval to travel to the United States. CBP receives this manifest eight days before a refugee’s scheduled travel.
Eight days.
No way ISIS is getting through.
To summarize, if the terrorist doesn’t have fingerprints in a database, he’ll get coached in multiple interviews how to respond and the only way he’s getting caught is if he announces during the actual interview that he’s a terrorist.
And even if he does, he’ll probably get a pass. Nidal Hassan did.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM
In largely secular western societies, Islam and its history are viewed by many non-Muslims as substantially irrelevant to how devout Muslims behave. Perhaps the view that religion is of little importance to devout Muslims is based on the role, minor if any, that religion and religious history play in their own secular lives. However, both Islamic teachings and history give devout Muslims their grounding in Islam and teach them that Islam is the religion of war, not peace: Islam must become the world’s only religion by extirpating all others.
Islam was founded by Mohamed ( c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) in the sixth century. Mohamed
Islam considers the words of Mohamed, as transcribed in the “Holy” Quran and Hadith, to be the words of Allah. “Restoring” other monotheistic religions means changing them to comport with Islam as dictated to Mohamed by Allah; unaltered, those other religions cannot continue to exist; it is the duty of Muslims to force them to change or to exterminate them.
Islam provides the basis for Sunni and Shiite (principal branches of Islam) efforts to govern world civilization according to Islamic principles as voiced by Allah through his prophet, Mohamed. Since Islamic principles tolerate no religious or political freedoms (let alone contemporary gender equality or homosexuality notions), such western ideas must be extirpated — as they have been in Saudi Arabia (now the head of the UN Human Rights Council) and Iran. Islamic principles are also manifested by the hopes and efforts of the Islamic State (Sunni, like Saudi Arabia) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shiite) to achieve their own caliphates.
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr is a scholar of Islamic law and a graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University — regularly touted as the world’s most prestigious Islamic university. Al Azhar University co-hosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginnings” address in Cairo, to which Obama insisted that at least ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited. According to an article at Jihad Watch,
It can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic]. The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? [Emphasis added.]
Nasr joins a growing chorus of critics of Al Azhar. Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that “The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches… and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir’s Beginning and End.”
Since the world’s preeminent Islamic university teaches Islam as proclaimed by the Islamic State, how can non-Muslims claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic? Why do many, even conservatives, refer to the Islamic State and its allied Islamic terror groups as “radical” or “extremist?”
Martin Luther was “radical” and “extreme” because he tried to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism which he deemed malign.
Unlike Martin Luther’s eventually successful efforts to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism, the efforts of Egyptian President Sisi and other moderate Muslims to reform Islam have thus far gained little traction. Obama appears to support President Sisi’s principal opponent in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Sisi and other moderates — rather than the Islamic State and Islamic nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia — should be characterized as “radical” or “extreme” because they dispute the teachings of Allah as relayed through his prophet, Mohamed. The proponents of Islam as it now exists are “mainstream,” and therefore neither “radical” nor “extreme.” We should support “radicals” like President Sisi.
All Islamic terrorists — not only the Islamic State group and al-Qaida — systematically and deliberately target civilians, stabbing their Muslim and “infidel” host countries in the back, abusing their hospitality to advance 14 centuries of megalomaniac aspirations to rule the globe in general, and to reclaim the “waqf” (Allah-ordained) regions of Europe in particular.
Emboldened by Western indifference, these destabilizing and terror-intensifying aspirations have been bolstered by the Islamic educational systems in Europe, the U.S. and other Western countries. These proclaim a supposedly irrevocable Islamic title over the eighth-century Islamic conquests of Lyon, Nice and much of France, as well as all of Spain; the ninth-century subjugation of parts of Italy; and the ninth- and 10th-century occupations of western Switzerland, including Geneva. [Emphasis added.]
Europe has underestimated the critical significance of this long anti-Western history in shaping contemporary Islamic education, culture, politics, peace, war, and the overall Islamic attitude toward Europe, North America, Australia, and other “arrogant infidels.” “Infidel” France has been the prime European target for Islamic terrorists, with 11 reported attacks in 2015, despite France’s systematic criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority — dispelling conventional “wisdom” that Islamic terrorism is Israeli or Palestinian-driven.
Europe has ignored the significant impact the crucial milestones in the life of the Prophet Muhammad have had on contemporary Islamic geostrategy, such as his seventh-century Hijrah, when Muhammad, along with his loyalists, emigrated or fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina), not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary. Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world. [Emphasis added.]
Our political leaders have been restricting the definition of this problem to whichever jihadist group is causing them the biggest headache at the present time, while ignoring the fact that they are all borne of the same Islamist ideology. Before ISIS emerged, the U.S. State Department strangely took to naming the problem “al Qaeda-inspired extremism,” even though it was not al Qaeda that inspired the radicalism. Rather, Islamist extremism inspired al Qaeda. And in turn, ISIS did not radicalize those 6,000 European Muslims who have traveled to join them, nor the thousands of supporters the French now say they are monitoring. [Emphasis added.]
This did not happened overnight and could not have emerged from a vacuum. ISIS propaganda is good, but not that good. No, decades of Islamist propaganda in communities had already primed these young Muslims to yearn for a theocratic caliphate. When surveyed, 33 percent of British Muslims expressed a desire to resurrect a caliphate. ISIS simply plucked the low-hanging fruit, which had been seeded long ago by various Islamist groups, and it will now require decades of community resilience to push back. But we cannot even begin to do so until we recognize the problem for what it is. Welcome to the full-blown global jihadist insurgency. [Emphasis added.]
The author of that article claims that Islamism (often referred to as “political Islam“) is not Islam:
I speak as a former Liberal Democrat candidate in the U.K.’s last general election and as someone who became a political prisoner in Egypt due to my former belief in Islamism. I speak, therefore, from a place of concern and familiarity, not enmity and hostility to Islam and Muslims. In a televised discussion with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on the issue, I have argued that of course ISIS is not Islam. Nor am I. Nor is anyone, really. Because Islam is what Muslims make it. But it is as disingenuous to argue that ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam” as it is to argue that “they are Islam.” ISIS has something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something. . . . [Emphasis added.]
It is important to define here what I mean by Islamism: Islam is a religion, and like any other it is internally diverse. But Islamism is the desire to impose a very particular version of Islam on society. Hence, Islamism is Muslim theocracy. [Emphasis added.]
Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslimssympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36%have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves.
I wish Mr. Nawaz well and hope that his efforts to change Islam succeed. However, in drawing distinctions between Islam and Islamism, he seems to have forgotten, or perhaps to have chosen to ignore, the teachings of Allah as relayed by his messenger and Islam’s founder, Mohamed, referenced at the beginning of this article. Mohamed (and presumably Allah himself) would be surprised by and even horrified at such notions as “Islam is what Muslims make it” and that Islam does not contemplate a Muslim theocracy. So, in all probability, would be many of the clerics at Egypt’s Al Azhar University.
Here are a few videos of Islamic clerics spreading their messages of Islamic peace, love and tolerance. The last of the bunch is about one of Obama’s favorite Muslims.
To close on a somewhat lighter note, here are a few observations by Jonah Goldberg taken from his Goldberg file (November 20, 2015 e-mail),
If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news” letter — you’ll find lots of left-wingtrollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).
What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today. [Emphasis added.]
Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)
. . . .
But it is simply a lie — an obvious, glaring, indisputable, trout-in-the-milk lie — that Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Simply put, this is nonsense. . . . The jihadists say they are motivated by Islam. They shout “Allahu akbar!” whenever they kill people. “Moderate Muslims” in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have been funding Islamic radicals around the world for nearly a century. This morning in Mali, terrorist gunmen reportedly released those hostages who could quote the Koran. The leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies and openly talks about restoring the Caliphate. [Emphasis added.]
Despite all of this, don’t be distracted from the greatest threat to our security; or perhaps we should be:
Telling Americans they’re supposed to “atone” for the Holocaust by helping Muslims harass and murder Jews is as backward as trying to apologize for slavery with more slavery.
************************
The dumbest “refugees” meme the left has rolled out to date are the comparisons between the Holocaust refugee policies of FDR that kept out Jews and political leaders today who want to take genuine Christian and Yazidi refugees instead of fake economic Muslim migrants who pose serious terrorism threats.
Living in New York City, I’ve lost count of the number of Muslim terror plots against synagogues since 9/11. The previous Paris attack by Muslims targeted a Jewish supermarket. (Or as Obama put it, “random folks in a deli.”)
Sure it’s #NotAllMuslims. It’s just enough of them that this behavior repeats itself time and time again. Until you end up with European cities like Malmo where there are so many Muslims that the Jews have to flee.
Belgium: 68 percent of Muslims harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, compared to 21 percent overall;
Spain: 62 percent, compared to 29 percent overall;
Germany: 56 percent, compared to 16 percent overall;
Italy: 56 percent, compared to 29 percent overall;
United Kingdom: 54 percent, compared to 12 percent overall;
France: 49 percent, compared to 17 percent overall.
Theologically, Islam is violently anti-Semitic. Mohammed’s final command was the ethnic cleansing of Jews. The shout Allahu Akbar originated from one of his massacres of Jews.
It’s that simple. Muslims hate Jews. Bringing more Muslims to America makes the country more anti-Semitic. It promotes violence against Jews and harassment of Jews.
In France, 73 percent of Jews surveyed said that they had witnessed or experienced anti-Semitism from someone with “Muslim extremist views.”
Why do liberals want to bring this same horrible reality to America?
Telling Americans they’re supposed to “atone” for the Holocaust by helping Muslims harass and murder Jews is as backward as trying to apologize for slavery with more slavery.
The worst possible way to respond to the Holocaust is by promoting the Muslim persecution of Jews in America.
If we want to take the kinds of refugees who are like the Jews in WW2, we should take stateless persecuted minorities, Christians and Yazidis.
Syrian Muslims are not stateless and they are not a minority. They are a supremacist group whose own intolerance of religious differences tore Syria apart. If we bring that intolerance to America, we will all suffer.
Said went across Turkey on foot. He never thought that his problems would only be starting once he made it to Germany.
“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards have arrested my brother in a house church. I fled the Iranian secret police, because I thought in Germany I can finally freely live by my religion,” says Said. “But in the home for asylum seekers, I can’t even openly admit that I am a Christian.”
Mainly Syrian refugees, mostly devout Sunni Muslims, live in the home. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say, I’m a, kuffar ‘, an unbeliever. They spit at me,” says Said. “They treat me like an animal. And threaten to kill me.”
Why do liberals want to bring this to America? If they don’t care about Syrian Christian refugees, what about gay Syrian refugees?
Rami Ktifan made a snap decision to come out. A fellow Syrian had spotted a rainbow flag lying near the 23-year-old university student’s belongings inside a packed refugee center. The curious man, Ktifan recalled, picked it up before casually asking, “What is this?”
“I decided to tell the truth, that it is the flag for gay people like me,” Ktifan said. “I thought, I am in Europe now. In Germany, I should not have to hide anymore.”
What followed over the next several weeks, though, was abuse — both verbal and physical — from other refugees, including an attempt to burn Ktifan’s feet in the middle of the night.
Bringing these people to America is like bringing Nazis here during the Holocaust to attack minorities here. It’s just evil and wrong.
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has condemned a bombing attack targeting Turkmen villages in Syria, while the Turkish Foreign Ministry has summoned the Russian ambassador over the incident.
“From here, we are once more warning the Syrian regime. We have reacted to all the attacks aimed at civilians close to our border without making any discrimination in regards to whether they have been Turkmen, Arab or Kurdish, not only because they have been Turkmen. At the moment, 40 Turkmen are wounded. We are following the matter village by village,” Davutoğlu told reporters on Nov. 20 an adding Turkish officials contacted their Russian counterparts over the issue.
“In recent days, there have been many intensified attacks against Syrian people in general and against our Turkmen siblings in particular, especially in the Bayırbucak neighborhood. All of last night, we made assessments with our military, intelligence and diplomatic units. Before everything else, this attack has revealed how the Syrian regime is bloody and barbarian,” he said.
“First of all, we are against all kinds of attacks launched against civilian people. The second point, we are against all kinds of attacks leading to a new influx of refugees at our border. The third point: the Bayırbucak Turkmen are our siblings who have lived there for centuries, like other Syrians. We are condemning this barbarian attack against them in the strongest way and once more, calling on everybody to be sensitive to this issue. Nobody can legitimize massacres targeting our Turkmen, Arab and Kurdish siblings there by claiming to have been fighting terror,” Davutoğlu said.
Within minutes of Davutoğlu delivering his remarks, the Turkish Foreign Ministry released a written statement on the same issue.
Upon an order by Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov was summoned to the ministry, the statement said.
During the meeting with Karlov on Nov. 19, “It was underlined that the Russian side’s actions were bombing civilian Turkmen villages, not fighting terror, which may lead to serious consequences,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tanju Bilgiç said in the statement, which came in the form of an official answer to a journalist’s question.
Turkish officials told Karlov they wanted Russia to “end this operation as soon as possible,” Bilgiç said, noting the same kind of warning was also conveyed to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special representative for the Middle East and Africa, during a telephone conversation.
Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported the Syrian regime forces expanded their ground operations on Nov. 19 to the Bayırbucak Turkmen area of the rural town of Latakia.
The agency cited local sources as saying that regime forces, with the support of Russian air strikes, conducted simultaneous attacks on the Fırınlık, Acısı, and Avanlı regions of the Turkmen mountain area near the border city of Kasab.
Ankara has traditionally expressed solidarity with the Syrian Turkmen, who are Syrians of Turkish descent.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has voiced his concern about Russia’s increasing involvement in the Syrian conflict and expressed anger at Russian incursions into Turkish air space in October.
Russia’s air strikes in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have shifted the balance of power in the conflict and dealt a setback to Turkey’s aim of seeing al-Assad removed from power.
The Foreign Ministry said Turkmen villages were subject to “heavy bombardment” by the Russian planes in the Bayırbucak area of northwest Syria, close to Turkey’s Yayladağ border in the Hatay province.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments