Posted tagged ‘Islamic slaughter’

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

Hollande to tell Obama Europe can’t wait for US war of attrition with ISIS to succeed

November 19, 2015

Hollande to tell Obama Europe can’t wait for US war of attrition with ISIS to succeed

report Published time: 19 Nov, 2015 10:36

Source: Hollande to tell Obama Europe can’t wait for US war of attrition with ISIS to succeed – report — RT News

French President François Hollande is to call for the US to review its strategy in fighting terrorist group Islamic State, arguing that Europe cannot wait for America’s long war of attrition with the jihadists to work, the Guardian reports.

Hollande is to meet US President Barack Obama on Tuesday next week before going to Russia for a visit. The French leader intends to make Obama aware of the extent of damage done to Europe by the developing refugee crisis and the rising threat of terrorist attacks, a European diplomat told the British newspaper.

“The message that we want to send to the Americans is simply that the crisis is destabilizing Europe,”said the diplomat, who did not wish to be named. “The problem is that the attacks in Paris and the refugee crisis show that we don’t have time. There is an emergency.”

The source said that’s the reason why the French president will visit Washington on Tuesday before flying to Moscow.

According to the diplomat, Paris’ position is that the Europeans cannot afford to wait for years for the war of attrition that the US-led coalition is waging on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, to take effect. There is an impression in Europe that the US doesn’t fully comprehend the urgency of the issue because it doesn’t have to take the bulk of the refugees fleeting Middle East and pouring into Europe in the biggest movement of people since World War II.

Hollande earlier called on the US and Russia, both of which lead a separate effort to eradicate IS, to join forces. Moscow said a broad coalition was needed to defeat the terrorists, but Washington said it would only agree if Russia shared its goals in Syria.

READ MORE: Russian warplanes disrupt ISIS oil sales channels; destroy 500 terrorist oil trucks in Syria

The White House insists that the Syrian conflict can only be resolved if President Bashar Assad steps down.

“Bottom line is, I do not foresee a situation in which we can end the civil war in Syria while Assad remains in power,” Barack Obama told reporters in Manila on the sidelines of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

The Kremlin sees the Syrian government as the most viable force in the country that can provide ground troops to battle terrorist groups. Russia says Assad’s political future should be decided by the Syrian people, but the US insists he should not be part of a political settlement.

The Pentagon on its part wants to rely on “moderate rebel forces” and Kurdish militias to attack terrorists on the ground in Syria. So far the strategy wasn’t effective. Kurds fought IS militants when they attacked Kurd-controlled territories, but are reluctant to go on offensive. The empowerment of Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria also puts the US-led coalition at odds with NATO member Turkey, which has been fighting Kurdish insurgency for decades.

As for the program to train and arm moderate rebels, it proved to be a failure with the Pentagon reporting in September just a handful of US-prepared soldiers actually fighting IS.

IS strategy has become one of the major campaign issues for the upcoming presidential election in the US. Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and Donald Trump have been criticizing the Obama administration for being too soft on terrorists.

Voices calling for the Obama administration to reconsider its ‘Assad must go’ mantra are coming from intelligence professionals as well.

“I think it’s now crystal clear to us that our strategy, our policy vis-à-vis ISIS is not working and it’s time to look at something else,” former CIA deputy director Michael Morell told CBS. “The question of whether President Assad needs to go or whether he is part of the solution – we must look at it again. Clearly he is part of the problem but he may also be part of the solution. An agreement, where he stays for a while and the Syrian army supported by the coalition takes on ISIS may be give us the best result.”

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.”

European Jewry’s bleak future

November 19, 2015

European Jewry’s bleak future, Israel Hayom, Isi Leibler, November 19, 2015

(Please see also, Who needs facts? We have Israel as a scapegoat. — DM)

In the midst of this turbulent, massive migration and ongoing fears of new terror attacks, the future for European Jews appears bleaker than ever.

The majority of Europeans believe Israel represents a greater threat to global security than do Iran and North Korea. Most are convinced that Israelis have genocidal intentions in relation to the Arabs, make no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and Jewish victims of terrorism, and frequently condemn Israelis for defending themselves against knife-wielding religious fanatics who are convinced that they will achieve paradise if they die in the course of murdering Jews.

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

That a massacre of at least 129 civilians in Paris, in the heart of Europe, could be engineered by half a dozen militarily trained killers is an indicator of what we can expect in the future unless ruthless measures are taken to confront the terrorists in their home base and reverse the tide. This will require more than bombing sorties, including the deployment of ground forces that U.S. President Barack Obama still bitterly resists.

Let us not understate the challenge. We face a brutal no-holds-barred conflict of civilizations in which evil forces motivated by a death cult would take us back to the Dark Ages. The barbarians have already penetrated our gates and we have witnessed another preview of the frightening horrors that human beings have the capacity of inflicting upon themselves.

What is amazing is that, even after this last manifestation, many European leaders remain in denial and fail to recognize that we are not confronted by mindless nihilistic terrorists but by fanatically inspired Islamic extremists committed to the destruction of Western civilization and democracy. The threat emanates from the broad stream of Islamic fundamentalism and cannot be restricted to Sunnis or Shiites despite the fact that they kill one another.

The reality is that Shiites no less than Sunnis are totally opposed to democracy and freedom of expression and seek to impose Shariah law.

Whether this flows from al-Qaida, Islamic State, the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, Hamas, or even the Palestinian Authority, which condemns murders in Paris but blesses the shedding of Jewish blood, they all share an underlying hatred of Western civilization, Christianity, and Judaism.

Our first major confrontation with Islamic terrorism beyond the Middle East was the 9/11 World Trade Center atrocity. But since the targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden, there has been a determined effort to convince us that the threat of Islamic extremism has essentially been vanquished. The United States made concerted efforts to woo and at times even counterproductively groveled to appease Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime.

It was Obama who insisted on erasing any reference to “Islamic terror” or any possible nexus between fundamentalist Islam and terrorism. This, despite the fact that aside from a few individual white supremacist outbursts, every case of organized terrorism was inspired by Islamic religious frenzy. The organization currently occupying the spotlight is Islamic State, made up of Sunnis, but the Shiite Hezbollah, like the Sunni Hamas, are birds of the same feather.

Despite the murderous cries of “Allahu akbar” by the killers, the French government and the media are even now still burying their heads in the sand when it comes to identifying the enemy. The term “Islamic terrorism” has simply been deleted from the political lexicon.

Until political correctness is set aside and there is a recognition that we face a worldwide threat to our existence and quality of life emanating from organized Islamic extremists, we will not be able to rally and unite to crush these elements.

The Islamic extremists understand that with minimal effort, they can orchestrate attacks in leading Western cities at marginal cost. As was evidenced now in Paris and earlier in Mumbai, half a dozen suicidal armed fanatics planted or resident in communities are able to inflict immense damage.

The situation in Europe is catastrophic. Most countries, in particular France, now host large Muslim communities, a substantial proportion of which are radicalized, antidemocratic and sympathetic to terrorist acts. Independent opinion polls show that the law-abiding moderate Muslims are in a minority and intimidated. What is frightening is the emergence of highly educated, homegrown second-generation European-born Muslims brainwashed in their local communities into becoming fanatical Islamists. A significant number volunteered for military service in Syria and returned to their homelands committed to becoming martyrs at a later stage.

The last straw is the massive flow of “refugees” which threatens to completely change the demography of Europe. Unable to integrate its existing Muslim minorities, there is little doubt that the new flow, which inevitably includes large numbers of xenophobic antidemocratic and pathologically anti-Semitic radicals, will only strengthen the existing extremist Islamic elements. These “refugees” undoubtedly also incorporate considerable numbers of jihadists, who will act immediately or remain sleepers until such time as a new terrorist operation is initiated.

In the midst of this turbulent, massive migration and ongoing fears of new terror attacks, the future for European Jews appears bleaker than ever.

Jews in most of Europe were already considered pariahs for many years. Today, the level of anti-Israelism has reached record levels. The majority of Europeans believe Israel represents a greater threat to global security than do Iran and North Korea. Most are convinced that Israelis have genocidal intentions in relation to the Arabs, make no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and Jewish victims of terrorism, and frequently condemn Israelis for defending themselves against knife-wielding religious fanatics who are convinced that they will achieve paradise if they die in the course of murdering Jews.

While millions of Syrians have been displaced and butchered, European leaders seem more concerned about labeling products produced by Israelis over the Green Line than identifying terrorists. Ironically, the EU does not consider the “political wing” of Hezbollah to be a terrorist body. There remains a refusal to recognize that the frenzied killers of Israeli Jews and the Islamic State terrorists who murdered civilians in Paris are all components of the same global Islamic terrorist enterprise.

Despite the greater concern about Islamic terrorism in the wake of the shocking attacks in Paris, even now it is highly unlikely that the negative French attitudes toward Israel, designed to appease the Arabs, will be diminished.

Although many Western parliamentarians and heads of state pay lip service to the contrary, popular anti-Semitism appears to be washing over the continent like a tsunami, with increasing incitement and violence in most European cities.

On top of this, long-standing quiescent Muslim minorities are being radicalized by terrorists incubated in their midst. This will be intensified by support from European Muslims returning home from Syria and Iraq promoting their jihadi world outlook.

These negative trends are being dramatically reinforced by what may represent the greatest migratory movement of the century. After Islam failed for centuries to conquer Europe militarily, if the flood of “refugees” is not stemmed, it may yet triumph by demographic means.

In a democracy, politicians ultimately tend to respond to public opinion. In this climate of snowballing anti-Semitic Muslim voters, combined with increasing popular and leftist anti-Semitism, the political future for Jews is bleak.

What makes it worse is that in virtually all European countries the major beneficiaries of these upheavals will be radical right-wing political parties, some of which are still in the process of purging themselves from anti-Semitic relics of the past, while others, particularly in Greece and Hungary, are outright neo-Nazi parties.

Under these circumstances, from every conceivable vantage point, European Jews can expect more difficult times. Their pariah-like existence will sink to lower depths and their security will inevitably be further undermined.

For those who seek to maintain Jewish continuity, Europe is beginning to look like a cemetery. Jewish communities will undoubtedly linger on the continent. But what sort of life will these Jewish enclaves endure with such anti-Semitism, violence, and feral hostility to Israel? Can Jewish values and pride be instilled among young Jewish people in such a climate?

Many Jews have been contemplating leaving for many years. Events in Paris over the last year and the massive wave of Muslim migration, including jihadist and anti-Semitic elements, only reinforce these legitimate fears. Every committed Jew should now be contemplating aliyah. Those unable to uproot themselves for economic or social reasons should at least encourage their children to move to Israel.

Yes, there is terrorism in Israel. But Jews can feel infinitely safer here than in European countries. In Israel, they will unite with their kinsmen and participate in their own Jewish homeland in which their own army, rather than foreign forces, will defend them against anti-Semites and jihadists.

This is surely a final wake-up call for European Jewry to consider making aliyah and participating in this great Jewish enterprise.

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

 

Report: Refugees are among ISIS plotters recently charged in U.S.

November 19, 2015

Report: Refugees are among ISIS plotters recently charged in U.S., Power LinePaul Mirengoff, November 19, 2015

[T]he existence of several refugees among the relatively small number (fewer than 70) of those recently charged with acting on behalf of ISIS illustrates that the appeal of Islamic terrorism to Muslim refugees extends beyond terrorist plants. This reality, coupled with the likelihood of plants and the impossibility of reliable vetting, presents a solid argument against admitting the Syrian refugees.

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

The Daily Mail reports that in the past 18 months, U.S. law enforcement authorities have charged at least 66 men and women with ISIS-related terror plots on American soil. A handful of those charged are refugees, according to the Daily Mail.

More typically, the plotters are American Muslims including some who converted to Islam. The conspirators include a U.S. Air Force veteran, a National Guard soldier who allegedly plotted to gun down his own colleagues, a young nurse, a pizza parlor boss, and schoolgirls tricked into becoming
ISIS brides.

For present purposes, though, it’s the refugees who are most relevant, given President Obama’s plan to take in 10,000 from Syria. The refugees include a Bosnian couple who allegedly gathered cash to buy military equipment for ISIS fighters in Syria and a 21-year-old native of Somalia who was born at a refugee camp in Kenya and arrived in the US when he was only nine.

These refugees aren’t ISIS plants; they came here before ISIS existed. The wave of Syrian refugees, by contrast, almost surely includes some whom ISIS seeks to sneak into this country. These refugees would almost certainly constitute a more dangerous cohort than any set previously taken in by the U.S.

But the existence of several refugees among the relatively small number (fewer than 70) of those recently charged with acting on behalf of ISIS illustrates that the appeal of Islamic terrorism to Muslim refugees extends beyond terrorist plants. This reality, coupled with the likelihood of plants and the impossibility of reliable vetting, presents a solid argument against admitting the Syrian refugees.

No wonder roughly two-thirds of our nation’s governors are resisting.

Obama: Federal law is un-American!

November 19, 2015

Obama: Federal law is un-American! Power LineJonn Hinderaker, November 18, 2015

On Monday, President Obama denounced Republicans, including Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, who suggested that the U.S. should admit Christian refugees fleeing persecution in Syria, but not Muslims from the same country. Obama called such a “religious test” “shameful” and “not American.” Today he doubled down, asserting that Republicans who object to resettling tens or hundreds of thousands of Islamic refugees from Syria in the U.S. are helping ISIS.

President Obama apparently is unaware of the controlling federal law, or maybe he just doesn’t care what the law says. It wouldn’t be the first time. Andy McCarthy tries to set Obama straight:

In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:

When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]

The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. …

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery). To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. …

And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can somethingAmerican law requires be “not American”?

There are strong practical as well as legal reasons for distinguishing between Islamic applicants for asylum and similar applications by Christians or others. We know that ISIS is trying to infiltrate terrorists into groups of migrants leaving Syria; there is some evidence that they have succeeded. As McCarthy says, no one has a right to emigrate to the U.S. The government’s first duty is to protect the American people, not to extend favors to foreigners. Moreover, Obama’s “compassion” argument falls flat. A recent Center for Immigration Studies report found that, for the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we could instead care for 12 refugees overseas. That is a much more cost-effective approach, and one that will not impose needless dislocation either on us, or on the refugees.

JOE adds: I have to say that by far the most disconcerting thing about Barack Obama as a man is–and this is a matter of objective observation, not of interpretation–that the only thing that really gets him emotionally fired up is his own conservative countrymen. The South China Sea, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea–nothing seems to faze this guy quite like Americans who read Burke.

The real war

November 19, 2015

The real war, Washington Times

Friday night’s attack in Paris was another reminder that we are in a real war.

It is vital that we understand what the real war is and who the real enemy is.

The real war is not geographic and it is not defined by ISIS. The real war is worldwide and the real enemy is Islamic supremacy in all its forms. The center of gravity is not Syria. The center of gravity is the internet.

We are confronted by a virus that is closer to epidemiology than to traditional state-to-state warfare. We will have to eradicate this virulent religious intolerance and violence here at home and across the planet. This is an extraordinarily difficult challenge.

Our elites have been hiding from the real war and the real challenge because it frightens them. They keep trying to redefine the problem so it can be solved without rethinking what we are doing.

Month after month the problem grows harder, the danger grows bigger, and more radicals are recruited. The elites wring their hands and hide. Each major attack leads to anguish, statements of sympathy and expressions of condemnation, but prompts no change in strategy and no effective action. These elites could be called the ostrich generation. They bury their heads in the sand and hide from reality.

Now let’s put last weekend’s tragedy in the context of the real war. Paris was, of course, only a skirmish in the larger war.

In the last two weeks, a Russian airliner was bombed in Egypt a terrorist stabbed four people in California after planning to behead someone and praising Allah and carrying the Islamic State flag, scores were killed by car bombs in Lebanon, people continued to be killed in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan … and eight terrorists carried out very visible, ruthless attacks in Paris.

Paris was so vivid, so symbolic, and so well televised that it became the center of attention.

Suddenly French President Francois Hollande announced that these coordinated attacks by eight terrorists were an “act of war.” He promised to fight with “all the necessary means, and all terrains, inside and outside, in coordination with our allies.” Mr. Hollande promised a “pitiless” effort.

There are three key questions about Mr. Hollande’s sudden militancy.

First, why wasn’t the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish grocery store back in January an act of war?

Second, does this declaration of war by the French president mean that victory is their goal and they have thought about how painful and expensive the Russian experience in Chechnya, the Israeli experience in the Palestinian territories, the Pakistani experience in the northwest frontier and the Egyptian experience of trying to police the Sinai have been?

Third, are they as prepared to wage war at home against the internal enemy as they are to bomb Syria? Today’s announcement by the Interior Ministry that some mosques that teach sharia and jihadism would be closed was a good start. There are, however, an estimated 47 mosques dedicated to sharia and jihad in the Paris region alone. Closing all of them would be a historic struggle.

First, we have to define the real war and the real enemy.

Then, we have to define victory and establish a strategy to achieve victory.

Then, we have to ensure we have the systems and structures to implement that strategy.

If we don’t do all three, we can’t expect to start winning the real war.