Posted tagged ‘Islamic Jihad’

USA Delivers 19,000 Bombs to Wahabist Saudis Supporting ISIS

November 19, 2015

USA Delivers 19,000 Bombs to Wahabist Saudis Supporting ISIS Could it be any more clear who is on the right side, and who is on the wrong side of this conflict?

(German Economic News) 1 hour ago

Source: USA Delivers 19,000 Bombs to Wahabist Saudis Supporting ISIS

Dealing death

Originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated by Susan Neumann.

The Islamist theocracy Saudi Arabia is getting heavy ammunition equaling billions of dollars from the United States. It remains to be seen whether this economic booster shot for the U.S. defense industry will lead to consequences in Syria. The Saudis are fighting covertly against the Russians.

The U.S. government has approved a multibillion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia. In order to strengthen its air force, the Islamist monarchy wants to purchase more than 19,000 bombs, which would total up to 1.29 billion dollars (1.19 billion euros).  This was confirmed by the State Department in Washington on Monday. Although the final word from the U.S. Congress is still pending, it’s likely that the approval will go through.

Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ key allies in the Middle East. The agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has caused tension in the relationship. Saudi Arabia is engaged in a power struggle with Tehran for control in the Gulf. The Saudi Arabian air force is launching air attacks in Yemen, whose government is not accepted by the Saudis. These attacks are recognized by the international community as unlawful.

The Saudis play a special role in Syria. They sit at the table at the Syrian peace talks in Vienna, when in fact, it is they who support the terrorists who are in a fight against the Russians. It’s unclear whether the Saudis are acting on behalf of the Americans. In any case, it can’t be ruled out that those U.S.-provided bombs will eventually be used in Syria, too.

In Saudi Arabia, human rights apply only in the context of a religious fundamentalist theocracy. Up to this point, protests out of the EU and the U.S. have been only scarcely perceived.

The arms shipment includes some 12,000 bombs with a combat weight of 500 to 2000 pounds, 1500 bunker-busting bombs, and more than 6,000 laser-guided precision bombs. According to Washington data, bomb arsenal from the Saudi Arabian armed forces will be heavily taxed by “the high level of deployment in several anti-terrorist operations”. Saudi Arabia participates in the U.S.-led air strikes against the Islamic State jihadi militia in Syria.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia ‘have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam

November 19, 2015

Qatar and Saudi Arabia ‘have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam’ General Jonathan Shaw, Britain’s former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, says Qatar and Saudi Arabia responsible for spread of radical Islam

10:23PM BST 04 Oct 2014

Source: Qatar and Saudi Arabia ‘have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam’ – Telegraph

Read also : Turkey’s Erdoğan urges united Muslim front against terror

https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-erdogan-urges-united-muslim-front-against-terror/

Gen Jonathan Shaw is a former commander of British forces in Basra

General Shaw told The Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were primarily responsible for the rise of Wahhabi Salafism, the extremist Islam that inspires Isil terrorists Photo: EPA

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have ignited a “time bomb” by funding the global spread of radical Islam, according to a former commander of British forces in Iraq.

General Jonathan Shaw, who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012, told The Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Isil terrorists.

The two Gulf states have spent billions of dollars on promoting a militant and proselytising interpretation of their faith derived from Abdul Wahhab, an eighteenth century scholar, and based on the Salaf, or the original followers of the Prophet.

But the rulers of both countries are now more threatened by their creation than Britain or America, argued Gen Shaw. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has vowed to topple the Qatari and Saudi regimes, viewing both as corrupt outposts of decadence and sin.

So Qatar and Saudi Arabia have every reason to lead an ideological struggle against Isil, said Gen Shaw. On its own, he added, the West’s military offensive against the terrorist movement was likely to prove “futile”.

“This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop,” said Gen Shaw. “And the question then is ‘does bombing people over there really tackle that?’ I don’t think so. I’d far rather see a much stronger handle on the ideological battle rather than the physical battle.”

Gen Shaw, 57, retired from the Army after a 31-year career that saw him lead a platoon of paratroopers in the Battle of Mount Longdon, the bloodiest clash of the Falklands War, and oversee Britain’s withdrawal from Basra in southern Iraq. As Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, he specialised in counter-terrorism and security policy.

All this has made him acutely aware of the limitations of what force can achieve. He believes that Isil can only be defeated by political and ideological means. Western air strikes in Iraq and Syria will, in his view, achieve nothing except temporary tactical success.

When it comes to waging that ideological struggle, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are pivotal. “The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahabist Salafism,” said Gen Shaw.

“The primary threat of Isil is not to us in the West: it’s to Saudi Arabia and also to the other Gulf states.”

Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are playing small parts in the air campaign against Isil, contributing two and four jet fighters respectively. But Gen Shaw said they “should be in the forefront” and, above all, leading an ideological counter-revolution against Isil.

The British and American air campaign would not “stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity,” added Gen Shaw. “It’s missing the point. It might, if it works, solve the immediate tactical problem. It’s not addressing the fundamental problem of Wahhabi Salafism as a culture and a creed, which has got out of control and is still the ideological basis of Isil – and which will continue to exist even if we stop their advance in Iraq.”

Gen Shaw said the Government’s approach towards Isil was fundamentally mistaken. “People are still treating this as a military problem, which is in my view to misconceive the problem,” he added. “My systemic worry is that we’re repeating the mistakes that we made in Afghanistan and Iraq: putting the military far too up front and centre in our response to the threat without addressing the fundamental political question and the causes. The danger is that yet again we’re taking a symptomatic treatment not a causal one.”

Gen Shaw said that Isil’s main focus was on toppling the established regimes of the Middle East, not striking Western targets. He questioned whether Isil’s murder of two British and two American hostages was sufficient justification for the campaign.

“Isil made their big incursion into Iraq in June. The West did nothing, despite thousands of people being killed,” said Gen Shaw. “What’s changed in the last month? Beheadings on TV of Westerners. And that has led us to suddenly change our policy and suddenly launch air attacks.”

He believes that Isil might have murdered the hostages in order to provoke a military response from America and Britain which could then be portrayed as a Christian assault on Islam. “What possible advantage is there to Isil of bringing us into this campaign?” asked Gen Shaw. “Answer: to unite the Muslim world against the Christian world. We played into their hands. We’ve done what they wanted us to do.”

However, Gen Shaw’s analysis is open to question. Even if they had the will, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be incapable of leading an ideological struggle against Isil. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is 91 and only sporadically active. His chosen successor, Crown Prince Salman, is 78 and already believed to be declining into senility. The kingdom’s ossified leadership is likely to be paralysed for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile in Qatar, the new Emir, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, is only 34 in a region that respects age. Whether this Harrow and Sandhurst-educated ruler has the personal authority to lead an ideological counter-revolution within Islam is doubtful.

Given that Saudi Arabia and Qatar almost certainly cannot do what Gen Shaw believes to be necessary, the West may have no option except to take military action against Isil with the aim of reducing, if not eliminating, the terrorist threat.

“I just have a horrible feeling that we’re making things worse. We’re entering into this in a way we just don’t understand,” said Gen Shaw. “I’m against the principle of us attacking without a clear political plan.”

Turkey’s Erdoğan urges united Muslim front against terror

November 19, 2015

Turkey’s Erdoğan urges united Muslim front against terror

ISTANBUL – Agence France-Presse

Source: Turkey’s Erdoğan urges united Muslim front against terror – POLITICS

He still dreams of a new ottoman empire !

DHA photo

DHA photo

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Nov. 19 called for a united front by Muslim leaders to fight extremism after the Paris attacks, warning that otherwise jihadists will commit further atrocities.

Erdoğan warned that “calamities will happen again” if the rise of radical Islam is not halted in Europe, after the Paris attacks on Nov. 13 claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group which killed 129 people and suicide bombings in Ankara that left 103 dead in Oct. 10.

“We are at a crossroads in the fight against terrorism after the Paris attacks,” Erdoğan told a meeting of the Atlantic Council think-tank in Istanbul.

“I strongly condemn the terrorists, who believe in the same religion as me, and I am calling on all leaders of Muslim countries to put up a united front,” he said.

“If not, those who knocked on our door in Ankara, will knock on your door elsewhere, as they did in Paris.”
Erdoğan, a pious Muslim whose Justice and Development Party (AKP) spearheaded the rise of political Islam in Turkey, has long angrily dismissed suggestions that Ankara colluded with ISIL in the Syrian civil war.

Turkey has supported rebel groups throughout the over four years of conflict in Syria in the hope they can help oust President Bashar al-Assad from power.

But Erdoğan lashed out at any notion “that all Muslims are terrorists,” saying: “Bad people can be Muslims as well as Christians and Jews.”

“Those who demonise Islam by  looking at Daesh are making a big mistake,” he said, using the Arabic acronym for ISIL.

“Daesh has nothing to do with Islam.”

With momentum building after the Paris attacks in the long-stalled bid of the world powers to find a solution for Syria, Erdoğan made clear Turkey would not budge from its insistence that Assad must leave power.

He accused Assad of supporting ISIL — which is ostensibly fighting the Damascus regime — and buying oil from the group.

“You would be blind not see it.”

“The chief reason for the humanitarian crisis and the rise of terrorism in the region today is Assad… Assad is waging state terrorism,” said Erdoğan.

International efforts to find common ground on Syria have so far been thwarted by disputes with Russia, which has long insisted the Syrian people alone should decide the fate of Assad, a Kremlin ally.

Turkey, however, has argued there can be no solution in Syria unless Assad leaves power.

November/19/2015

President Erdoğan still pursuing no-fly zone in northern Syria

November 19, 2015

President Erdoğan still pursuing no-fly zone in northern Syria

ANKARA

Source: President Erdoğan still pursuing no-fly zone in northern Syria – MIDEAST

A U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle from the 48th Fighter Wing lands at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, November 12, 2015. REUTERS Photo

A U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle from the 48th Fighter Wing lands at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, November 12, 2015. REUTERS Photo

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has again voiced his desire to create a no-fly zone and establish a train-and-equip program for Syrian rebels while floating the idea of building settlements for Syrian refugees in line with their “national architectural style.”

“A no-fly zone, terror-free zone and train-and-equip [program] – steps are needed on these issues. Now our relevant departments are carrying out work. Timing is another issue, but the process is under control. This step will be taken, some areas have especially been earmarked,” Erdoğan said in an interview aired on ATV and A Haber channels late on Nov. 18.

New housing that is in harmony with local architecture should be built in the area where Syrian refugees are located, the president said.

A no-fly zone will protect them, while Syrian opposition forces will have the power to conduct a ground operation in the prospective area, he said.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a threat to Turkey, Erdoğan also said in reply to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who suggested an operation with Turkey against the jihadist group.

“We’ll take a step with coalition forces,” he said.

Turkey has long pushed for a safe zone to protect civilians from Syrian airstrikes, but the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly rejected the idea as too difficult to implement.

November/19/2015

The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches

November 19, 2015

The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches The most “moderate” Muslim country is looking more like ISIS by the day.

November 19, 2015

Raymond Ibrahim

Source: The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches | Frontpage Mag

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

In compliance with Islamic demands, Indonesian authorities in the Aceh region have started to tear down Christian churches. Their move comes after Muslim mobs rampaged and attacked churches. At least one person was killed; thousands of Christians were displaced.

On Friday, October 9, after being fired up during mosque sermons, hundreds of Muslims marched to the local authority’s office and demanded that all unregistered churches in Aceh be closed. Imams issued text messages spurring Muslims from other areas to rise up against churches and call for their demolition.

On Monday, October 12, authorities facilitated a meeting with Islamic leaders and agreed to demolish 10 unregistered churches over the course of two weeks.

Apparently this was not fast enough to meet Muslim demands for immediate action. On the following day, a mob of approximately 700 Muslims, some armed with axes and machetes, torched a local church, even though it was not on the list of churches agreed upon for demolition.

The Muslim mob then moved on to a second church, an act that led to violent clashes. One person, believed to be a Christian, died after being shot in the head. Several were injured, as Christians tried to defend their church against the armed mob.

Approximately 8,000 Christians were displaced; many fled to bordering provinces. Their fears were justified: Islamic leaders continued issuing messages and text messages saying, “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!”

Instead of punishing those who incited violence and took the law into their own hands by torching and attacking churches, local authorities demolished three churches (a Catholic mission station and two Protestant churches) on October 19. In the coming days, seven more churches are set to be demolished; in the coming months and years, dozens more.

Authorities had originally requested of church leaders to demolish their own churches. “How can we do that?” asked Paima Berutu, one of the church leaders: “It is impossible [for us to take it down] … Some of us watched [the demolition] from afar, man and women. It was painful.”

The situation in Aceh remains tense: “Every church member is guarding his own church right now,” said another pastor.

As for the displaced Christians, many remain destitute, waiting for “desperately needed clean water, food, clothes, baby food, blankets, and medicines.” As Muslim militants were reportedly guarding the border with an order to kill any Christian crossing the line, reaching the displaced Christians is difficult.

Many Muslims and some media try to justify this destruction by pointing out that the churches were in the wrong for not being registered. In reality, however, thanks to Indonesia’s 2006 Joint Decree on Houses of Worship, it is effectively impossible to obtain a church permit. The decree made it illegal for churches to acquire permits unless they can get “signatures from 60 local households of a different faith,” presumably Muslims, as well as “a written recommendation from the regency or municipal religious affairs office” — that is, from the local sheikh and council of Muslim elders, the same people most likely to incite Muslims against Christians and churches during mosque gatherings. Christian activists say there are many mosques that are unregistered and built without permits, but the authorities ignore those infractions.

Others try to justify these recent attacks on churches by pointing out that they took place in Aceh, the only region in Indonesia where Islamic law, or Sharia, is officially authorized, and where, since 2006, more than 1,000 churches have been shut.

Yet in other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law is not enforced, even fully registered churches are under attack. These include the Philadelphia Protestant Church in Bekasi — nearly 1,500 miles south of Sharia-compliant Aceh. Even though it had the necessary paperwork, it too was illegally shut down in response to violent Muslim protests. On December 25, 2012, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims, including women and children, continued to persecute the church-less congregation by throwing rotten eggs, rocks, and plastic bags filled with urine and feces at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.

A church spokesman stated, “We are constantly having to change our location because our existence appears to be unwanted, and we have to hide so that we are not intimidated by intolerant groups. … We had hoped for help from the police, but after many attacks on members of the congregation [including when they privately meet for worship at each other’s homes], we see that the police are also involved in this.

Bogor is another area where Islamic law is supposedly not enforced. Yet the ongoing saga of the GKI Yasmin Church there illustrates how Islamic law takes precedence over Indonesian law. In 2008, when local Muslims began complaining about the existence of the church, even though it was fully registered, the authorities obligingly closed it. In December 2010, the Indonesian Supreme Court ordered the church to be reopened, but the mayor of Bogor, refusing to comply, kept it sealed off.

Since then, the congregation has been holding Sunday services at the homes of members, and occasionally on the street, to the usual jeers and attacks by Muslim mobs. On Sunday, September 27, the church held its 100th open-air service.

The Indonesian jihad is taking place in varying degrees all throughout the East Asian nation and is not limited to Sharia-compliant zones such as Aceh. The “extremist” behavior one would expect of the Islamic State (ISIS) — hating, attacking, and demolishing churches — is apparently becoming the norm for the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam.”

Update: 2 Murdered, Multiple Wounded in Tel Aviv Synagogue Stabbing Attack [video]

November 19, 2015

Update: 2 Murdered, Multiple Wounded in Tel Aviv Synagogue Stabbing Attack

By: Jewish Press News Briefs

Published: November 19th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » Update: 2 Murdered, Multiple Wounded in Tel Aviv Synagogue Stabbing Attack

Police car in Panorama Building - Nov. 19, 2015.

Police car in Panorama Building – Nov. 19, 2015.
Photo Credit: Rotter.net

Four people were stabbed in a synagogue in the Panorama Building on Ben-Zvi Boulevard in southern Tel Aviv, at 2 PM.

The attack happened during the afternoon Mincha prayers in the building.

One of the wounded is dead, he was killed immediately in the attack, a second man died at the hospital, a third is moderately wounded.

The terrorists has been captured and he is in light to moderate condition.

Police now say there was only one terrorist. Initially they suspected there was a second terrorist, and they were searching the area for him.

Workers in the building were told by police to stay in their offices during the search.

The terrorist was from the town of Dura near Hebron, and had no previous security record, accord to TPS.

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the Har Nof Synagogue Massacre.

Hashtag for Paris: #LET’SJUSTCAPITULATE

November 19, 2015

Hashtag for Paris: #LET’SJUSTCAPITULATE, Front Page MagazineTibor Krausz, November 19, 2015

nov.-13-paris-attacks-memorial

Within hours of the slaughter came the usual fatuous memes. The peace sign with an Eiffel Tower in it. The French tricolor superimposed over Facebook profile images. The #prayforparis hashtag on Twitter. If fervent emoting was a viable anti-terrorism strategy, we would have Islamic terrorists on the run in nothing flat. As matters stand, however, the West is facing a massive civilizational challenge from radical Islam, which has been waging a global war on free societies for decades. And not only are most Europeans out of their depth intellectually about this threat; they seem both unable and unwilling to defend themselves from it in any meaningful manner. Most of them can’t even bring themselves to name the threat (radical Islam, which has gone mainstream globally) — as if doing so would unleash some sinister, occult force that would instantly destroy all the comforting illusions of the modern West’s collectivist religions: political correctness and multiculturalism. Then again, you also get labeled a racist instantly for doing so: those comforting illusions must be enforced at all cost.  

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

No sooner did Islamic militants massacre 132 concertgoers, partygoers, pedestrians and coffeehouse patrons in Paris last week than the world jumped collectively to its feet. “The world stands with Paris,” the Bloomberg news agency declared. “World stands by France,” USA Today stressed. “The world stands with France,” The Australian insisted. “World stands behind France,” The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong explained. “World stands in solidarity with Paris,” The National in Abu Dhabi, News World in India and CCTV Africa in Kenya all concurred.

Good to know. But we might as well sit down now. It’s not as if “the world” was going to do anything anyhow beyond just standing there and trotting out the usual platitudes that have become routine in the wake of daily atrocities by Islamic terrorists over the past weeks, months and years, from Kenya to Canada and from Thailand to Tunisia. And so there the world was, standing with Paris and by France, posting faux-lachrymose status updates on social media, projecting the colors of France’s national flag onto cultural landmarks, and attending candlelight vigils where someone inevitably led a soulful sing-along to John Lennon’s “Image” and “Give Peace a Chance.”

And the world had barely just started. Within hours of the slaughter came the usual fatuous memes. The peace sign with an Eiffel Tower in it. The French tricolor superimposed over Facebook profile images. The #prayforparis hashtag on Twitter. If fervent emoting was a viable anti-terrorism strategy, we would have Islamic terrorists on the run in nothing flat. As matters stand, however, the West is facing a massive civilizational challenge from radical Islam, which has been waging a global war on free societies for decades. And not only are most Europeans out of their depth intellectually about this threat; they seem both unable and unwilling to defend themselves from it in any meaningful manner. Most of them can’t even bring themselves to name the threat (radical Islam, which has gone mainstream globally) — as if doing so would unleash some sinister, occult force that would instantly destroy all the comforting illusions of the modern West’s collectivist religions: political correctness and multiculturalism. Then again, you also get labeled a racist instantly for doing so: those comforting illusions must be enforced at all cost.

In a video that has gone instantly viral on social media, a father and his young son are being interviewed, in French, by a television reporter at a memorial in Paris to the victims of the attacks. With people laying flowers and lighting candles in the background, the reporter asks the boy, who is around five, if he knows what happened. Yes, the boy answers, some bad people killed others. Why? “Because they’re very, very evil,” he explains solemnly. “They are not very nice. They are bad guys. You have to be very careful [with them]… They have guns and they can shoot us.” The father gently interrupts him. “Yes, but we have flowers,” he tells his son. “Look, everyone is laying flowers. That’s the way to fight guns.” The boy remains unconvinced. “But flowers don’t do anything,” he explains. But the father remains persistent. We need flowers and candles to fight evil, he reassures his son until the boy relents.

In other words, the young boy instinctively understood the world better than the adults around him. But we can’t have that, can we, so he, too, was cajoled into seeing things through the rose-tinted illusions of insipid banalities. Many Europeans’ solution to the ever-present threat of murderous Islamic fanaticism is to pretend that the only way to combat it is to bring flowers to a gun fight. If you can’t beat them, try to hug them. (Their suicide belts might get in the way, though.)

If we needed any more confirmation, the general reactions to the Paris attacks have provided it: Today’s Western European societies are in an advanced state of civilizational decline. Rather than rouse themselves from their stupor and face down the Islamic threat as earlier generations would doubtless have done, the continent’s policymakers and citizens alike prefer to look the other way and carry on insisting that all we need to do is to try and get along. If that takes curtailing our freedoms, giving in to yet more demands from Islamic radicals, and abjectly apologizing constantly for our forebears’ misdeeds in centuries past as if modern Europeans were collectively responsible for the Crusades, so be it. At the same time, the very idea of expecting “moderate” Muslims to take a robust public stance against the endless blood-soaked crimes their coreligionists commit is reflexively dismissed as intolerably racist. That is to say, intellectual coherence isn’t much of a virtue these days.

“France is at war,” French President Francois Hollande declared after the November 13 attacks in Paris, which featured militants from an enviably “multicultural” tableau that politically correct Europeans can be proud of: native-born Belgians, French nationals, recently arrived Syrian “refugees.” Hollande promised a “ruthless” response. Needless to say, his ephemeral impersonation of Charles de Gaulle didn’t last. “We are not committed to a war of civilizations because these assassins don’t represent any civilization,” he waffled. “We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world.” In other words, what France is up against is the nebulous concept of “jihadism,” which is unrelated to any creed or culture or community.

But let’s not blame Monsieur Hollande for his weak-kneed obscurantism. It’s the default position of Western politicians and “intellectuals.” President Barack Obama has likewise opined that the Islamic State, which has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks, “no more represent[s] Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism.” Leaving aside the logical fallacy in that garbled statement (are we to believe that any madman who kills in the name of those other faiths represents Islam just as much as the Islamic State?), what to make of his follow-up insight? “No religion is responsible for terrorism,” Obama added. “People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

So long, common sense. Goodbye, logic. Farewell, reason.

France will retaliate by bombing ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq while simultaneously rounding up scores of Islamic militants on French soil. It will also boost security at popular venues at great cost to taxpayers. What France and most other European nations won’t do is even try and tackle the real root cause of the problem, which is an extensive homegrown infrastructure of Islamic radicalism. Schools and mosques will continue to indoctrinate impressionable young Muslims with a hatred of their host societies on the trumped-up charge that the West is waging a collective war of extermination against innocent Muslims worldwide. More Europeans will continue to die in brutal terror attacks as a result.

Even as France and other nations cut off one head of the hydra of Islamic radicalism by eliminating a militant cell or two, other ones will spawn instantly in their place. France prohibits polls based on the religious beliefs of respondents, but according to solid evidence at least 15 percent of French Muslims identify with the ideology and goals of the Islamic State. In nearby Britain a quarter of young Muslims said they approved of the Islamic terrorists who murdered almost the entire editorial staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January. Such figures translate into millions of young Muslims, providing Islamic terrorists with a potentially limitless pool of new recruits.

The West is light-years ahead of the Muslim world when it comes to technological, industrial and military might, but it lacks the essential ingredient of long-term success: staunch belief in the justness of its cause and the superiority of its values. What’s the use of pounding away at targets thousands of miles away, in Syria and Iraq, when back home we’ve already capitulated?

Post Paris: Liberals Can’t Blame Terror Attack on Muslims

November 19, 2015

Post Paris: Liberals Can’t Blame Terror Attack on Muslims, PJTV via You Tube, November 19, 2015

 

8 ISIS terrorists arrested plotting to pose as refugees

November 18, 2015

8 ISIS terrorists arrested plotting to pose as refugees, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 18, 2015

(Please see also, Obama in Manilla: Republicans Are Afraid of Widows and Three Year-Old Children. — DM)

cartoonrefugees

Nothing to worry about. If you’re at all concerned about terrorists posing as refugees, you’re probably some sort of orphan-hating Islamophobe.

Either that or the director of the FBI. Or the Director of National Intelligence.

But Obama knows that only bigots worry about terrorists posing as refugees. So it’s unfortunate that the Islamophobic Muslim government of Turkey just arrested 8 ISIS members who were plotting to pose as refugees to penetrate Europe.

Turkish police have detained eight suspected members of ISIS who were planning to sneak into Europe posing as refugees, state media said today.

Counter-terror police detained the suspects in Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport after they flew in from the Moroccan city of Casablanca on Tuesday, the official Anatolia news agency reported.

The police found a hand-written note on one of the suspects detailing a migration route from Istanbul to Germany via Greece, Serbia and Hungary, including smuggler boats across the Mediterranean Sea, as well as several train and bus journeys.

It comes just a day after it was revealed eight migrants have reached the EU using passports identical to the fake one found on one of the Paris suicide bombers.

We were told over and over again by the refugeecrats that ISIS terrorists would never want to pose as refugees because it’s just too slow and there are so many security checks. Apparently ISIS isn’t aware that it isn’t supposed to infiltrate countries as refugees.

Let’s swiftly ignore this news and take in huge numbers of Syrian migrants the way that Obama and Hillary want us to while completely ignoring the terror risks until an actual attack happens.

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS

November 18, 2015

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS His real enemy isn’t the Caliph of ISIS, but the ordinary American.

November 18, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Source: Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS | Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. “You can’t contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women,” he said.

Instead he argued, “The goal has to be to dismantle them.”

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity to horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.