Posted tagged ‘Islamic slaughter’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

2,000 Russian Troops Head To Syria For “First Phase” Of Mission To Support Assad

September 22, 2015

2,000 Russian Troops Head To Syria For “First Phase” Of Mission To Support Assad Tyler Durden’s picture

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/22/2015 09:32 -0400

Source: 2,000 Russian Troops Head To Syria For “First Phase” Of Mission To Support Assad | Zero Hedge

With each passing day, The Kremlin seems less and less interested in observing any niceties with regard to how it describes Russia’s military involvement in Syria.

Initially, it seemed likely that Moscow would go the Ukraine route by providing logistical support and lurking behind the scenes while officially denying – or at least downplaying – its role in the conflict. Over the course of the last two weeks, it’s become increasingly clear that Russia now intends to make no secret of its intention not only to stabilize the Assad regime but in fact to turn the tide completely with the provision of advanced weapons and equipment including combat aircraft, tanks, and drones.

The only remaining question was how long it would be before Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem made an official request for ground troops, allowing Moscow to abandon all pretense that Russia isn’t officially at war and while we may not have reached that point yet, you can’t very well build a forward operating base and not staff it which is why now, according to FT, Moscow is set to send 2,000 troops to Latakia as part of the mission’s “first phase”. Here’s more:

Russia is to deploy 2,000 military personnel to its new air base near the Syrian port city of Latakia, signalling the scale of Moscow’s involvement in the war-torn country.

 

The deployment “forms the first phase of the mission there”, according to an adviser on Syria policy in Moscow.

 

The force will include fighter aircraft crews, engineers and troops to secure the facility, said another person briefed on the matter.

 

Three western defence officials agreed that the Russian deployment tallied with the numbers needed to establish a forward air base similar to those built by western militaries in Afghanistan.

Here’s more, from The New York Times, on the buildup at Latakia:

The deployment of some of Russia’s most advanced ground attack planes and fighter jets as well as multiple air defense systems at the base near the ancestral home of President Bashar al-Assad appears to leave little doubt about Moscow’s goal to establish a military outpost in the Middle East. The planes are protected by at least two or possibly three SA-22 surface-to-air, antiaircraft systems, and unarmed Predator-like surveillance drones are being used to fly reconnaissance missions.

 

Russia has military presences near Latakia and in Tartus.Russian Moves in Syria Widen Role in MideastSEPT. 14, 2015

 

“With competent pilots and with an effective command and control process, the addition of these aircraft could prove very effective depending on the desired objectives for their use,” said David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

 

In addition, a total of 15 Russian Hip transport and Hind attack helicopters are also now stationed at the base, doubling the number of those aircraft from last week, the American official said. For use in possible ground attacks, the Russians now also have nine T-90 tanks and more than 500 marines, up from more than 200 last week.

 

“The equipment and personnel just keep flowing in,” said the American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence reports. “They were very busy over the weekend.”

On Monday, the Russian embassy in Damascus came under mortar fire. That attack, Moscow says, did not emanate from ISIS but rather from other anti-Assad forces backed by “external sponsors”:

The Russian foreign ministry said a shell, which landed near its embassy on Sunday but caused no casualties, came from Jobar, which is held by anti-Assad fighters who were not allied with Isis and had “external sponsors”.

 

“We expect a clear position with regard to this terrorist act from all members of the international community, including regional players,” the ministry said. “This requires not just words but concrete action.”

 

It added that the fighters’ “foreign sponsors” were responsible for using their influence on “illegal armed formations”.

Clearly, “foreign sponsors” is a reference to Assad’s US-backed regional enemies including the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey among others and this certainly seems to indicate that the Russians will not be prepared to tolerate attacks on their assets by groups who enjoy the support of the US-backed coalition. Of course quite a few of the groups battling for control of Syria are supported either directly or indirectly by the US and its regional allies which means that even if Russia manages to avoid direct confrontation with the handful of troops the US overtly backs, avoiding confrontations with the troops covertly supported by the US and other state actors will be impossible by definition, as they, just as much as ISIS, are angling for the ouster of Assad.

Meanwhile, the French took the absurdity to a whole new level on Monday when Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius claimed that the country’s plans to begin bombing Syria were born out of concerns for “self defense”. Here’s the quote:

“We received specific intelligence indicating that the resent terrorist attacks against France and other European nations were organized by Daesh [Arabic derogatory term for IS] in Syria. Due to this threat we decided to start reconnaissance flights to have the option for airstrikes, if that would be necessary. This is self-defense.“

And so, as the violence escalates and Syria looks set to become the stage for a not-so-cold war pitting Russia and its regional proxies against the US and its regional proxies, we close with the following graphic which (partially) quantifies the human cost of geopolitical wrangling gone horribly awry:

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 26 Comments

U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander

September 22, 2015

U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander Written

by Alex Newman

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Source: U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander

U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander

 

One of the Islamic State’s top military commanders was actually trained by U.S. Special Forces in the nation of Georgia before taking up arms for ISIS in Syria, according to a variety of sources quoted in an explosive new report by the McClatchy news agency. Another member of the Obama administration’s supposed “anti-ISIS” coalition, the Wahhabi-Islamic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, played a key role radicalizing the jihadist leader through a hard-core Islamist mosque it funded near his village. In other words, without the direct assistance of key “anti-ISIS” governments — including Washington, D.C. — the man said to be ISIS’ most fearsome and skilled military leader would almost certainly never have arrived in Syria to wage ruthless war on infidels in the first place. But ISIS commander Tarkhan Batirashvili (shown), who now calls himself Abu Omar al Shishani, is hardly the only one.

As explosive evidence and news reports continue to emerge highlighting the trend, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell where ISIS begins and the globalist establishment ends. Among other revelations, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at Harvard, admitted that Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition had funded and armed various terrorist groups in Syria that went on to become ISIS. Later, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey revealed in Senate testimony that Sunni Arab dictators in Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition were not just supporting ISIS — they were funding it. Next, a 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report released under the Freedom of Information Act exposed the fact that Western powers and their Islamic dictator allies were supporting Islamic terrorists and wanted to see a fundamentalist Islamic State created in Eastern Syria. And finally, the former chief of DIA went on TV and spilled the beans on Obama’s “willful” support to Islamic terrorists while distancing himself from the deadly policies.

The McClatchy report, then, is only the latest shoe to drop in a long train of revelations directly linking the U.S. government and its allies to ISIS and jihad more broadly. Headlined “U.S. training helped mold top Islamic State military commander,” the September 15 article by special correspondent Mitchell Prothero contains a treasure trove of information about the U.S.-trained terrorist gathered from interviews with a wide range of sources, including many close to the ongoing Syrian war. In essence, the report paints a troubling picture of Batirashvili’s background, and offers much insight into how he became a leading ISIS commander responsible for a number of critical victories secured by the terrorist group. From his U.S. military training in Georgia to his radicalization in a Saudi-funded mosque, the piece provides still more evidence about the utter failure — or outright insanity, perhaps even criminality — surrounding what Washington, D.C., likes to characterize as “foreign policy.”

According to the McClatchy report, the 30-year-old Batirashvili (a.k.a. Abu Omar) is a “key figure” in ISIS, reportedly serving on the ISIS “governing council” in addition to being the terror group’s “supreme military leader in northern Syria and Aleppo.” The report, citing his military prowess obtained from U.S. training and a number of critical military victories he led over Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s forces, also refers to him as “perhaps the group’s most fearsome ground commander.” And there is a good reason for that: your tax dollars. “We trained him well, and we had lots of help from America,” an unidentified former Georgian defense official told the news agency, asking not to be named because of the sensitivity of the terrorist’s role in ISIS. “In fact, the only reason he didn’t go to Iraq to fight alongside America was that we needed his skills here in Georgia.”

Batirashvili’s former comrades in the Georgian military echoed the praise for the terrorist’s military abilities and told McClatchy that he was “immediately” recruited into Georgia’s U.S.-trained special forces upon enlistment. Again, your tax dollars — and your sons serving in the U.S. military — played a crucial role in transforming Batirashvili from an impoverished Muslim Chechen villager into a brutal and well-trained commander whose forces are now busily decapitating Christians and selling children into sex slavery to fund jihad. “He was a perfect soldier from his first days, and everyone knew he was a star,” explained a former military comrade of Batirashvili, who also requested anonymity because he was violating orders by speaking to the press about the issue. “We were well trained by American special forces units, and he was the star pupil.”

Of course, the U.S. government training for Batirashvili and other soldiers in Georgia did not take place with the explicit goal of producing future military leaders for a group of savages styling themselves the Islamic State. Instead, similar in many ways to what happened with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the U.S. government plan, supposedly at least, was to help the government of Georgia defend itself against potential aggression from the Kremlin. And indeed, according to sources interviewed for the McClatchy report, Batirashvili fought well against Russian strongman Vladimir Putin’s forces, first as a Chechen rebel, and later as a U.S.-trained Georgian Special Forces officer.

While Batirashvili came from an isolated Islamic enclave in the largely Christian nation, Batirashvili and others from his region had traditionally followed a moderate strain of Islam, so-called Sufi Islam. But Sufi Muslims are often considered heretics by their more radical coreligionists in places such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Eventually, thanks to generous funding from the U.S.-allied Saudi dictatorship, hardcore Wahhabi Islam would soon make its mark on the Chechen enclave in Georgia — and on Batirashvili in particular. The same phenomenon has happened around the world.

According to McClatchy, the moderate version of Islam followed by locals from Batirashvili’s region came under pressure in the year 2000, when the Saudi regime financed the construction of a new mosque for the handful of ethnic Chechen villages in the Georgian valley. A local community leader quoted in the article explained that this new mosque “preached a kind of alien Wahhabi-style Islam” — the same radical Islam that the Saudi monarchy, a key member of Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition, has for generations been trying to propagate around the world with lavish funding from its oil revenues. “It told our people that it was wrong to pray at graves of saints and ancestors, as our people have done for hundreds of years, and even to share our religious rites with our Christian brothers,” the community leader said. Other residents told the news agency that by the mid-2000s, the new Saudi-backed mosque had split the local Muslim community in two, with older Muslims sticking to their traditional faith while younger villagers became radicalized in the new mosque.

Then, the globalist-engineered civil war broke out in Syria after years of U.S. taxpayer funding for Syrian opposition groups exposed in official U.S. diplomatic cables. At that point, the radicalized young Muslim villagers in Georgia affiliated with the Saudi mosque — prepared for violent jihad through years of Saudi-funded radical teachings — began an exodus to go wage holy war in Syria. “They all started leaving for Syria,” the community elder told McClatchy. “Things are safer here now because all the radicals — our children — have gone to Syria.” The report also notes that the radicalized Batirashvili served as an excellent recruiting tool for ISIS, attracting jihadists from across central Asia to join the jihad on the “apostate” dictator of Syria.

It is impossible to know how many other ISIS fighters from around the world were also radicalized in mosques funded by members of the “anti-ISIS” coalition, or how many of those fighters received training from the U.S. military under various guises. But without a doubt, there are many. In fact, Obama’s alleged plan to fight ISIS — training and equipping so-called moderate jihadists to fight more radical jihadists — was exposed as a monumental failure this week. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on September 16, General Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, admitted that just “four or five” of Obama’s U.S.-trained jihadists were actually fighting against ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, as The New American and others have documented extensively, far more than that are currently fighting with ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups across Syria — often with heavy U.S. weapons. Indeed, entire brigades of U.S.-trained rebels have joined terror groups or signed agreements with them to fight Assad.

As a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s lawless so-called “foreign policy” machinations, hundreds of thousands are dying, millions are fleeing their homes, refugees are swamping Europe, Middle Eastern Christians are facing genocide, and the national security threat to the United States is growing stronger by the day. Now, all those crises are being exploited by the same globalists who created them to push more of the same insanity.

It is time for Congress to shut down this farce and hold everyone responsible for it accountable.

Photo of  Abu Omar al Shishani, taken from a video: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:

U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria

ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy

U.S. Defense Intel Chief: Obama Gave “Willful” Aid to Al-Qaeda

Globalists Who Created Refugee Crisis Now Exploiting It

Globalists Using Muslim Terrorists as Pawns  

Globalists Exploit ISIS Threat to Empower UN

Obama and Co. Middle East Policies Aiding Genocide of Christians

Anti-ISIS Coalition Built ISIS (Video) 

Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy

ISIS Origins Traced to U.S. Prison in Iraq

U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Linked to Bilderberg, CFR, Goldman Sachs & George Soros

Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs

September 21, 2015

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, September 21, 2015

(Isn’t it shameful that Dr. Carson is a politically incorrect “Islamophobe?” What is that, anyway?

Don’t we want another a Muslim in the White House? Then Obama could be truly proud of America. What could possibly go wrong? — DM)

ben-carson

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

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

If Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has any say in the matter, whoever the next President is, it won’t be Ben Carson. “He is not qualified to be president of the United States,” fumed CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, no doubt an unimpeachable authority on who is and is not qualified to be President, on Sunday. “You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.” What views? Carson said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He said that this was because Islam contradicted important Constitutional principles.

CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, sent out an email Sunday saying it would hold a news conference demanding that Carson withdraw from the presidential race for daring to say these things. “Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’” said CAIR top dog Nihad Awad. “We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

But the problems with a Muslim being President aren’t religious, they’re political. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law.

No one, that is, except the Muslim clerics who agree with Carson. Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar said in March 2009: “Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ” — because in Islamic thought, only Allah legislates.

Abd Al-Karim Bakkar was reflecting a common view. Pakistan Muslim leader Sufi Muhammad said in May 2009: “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy.” Mesbah Yazdi, leader of the Shia Taliban in Iran, said in September 2010 that “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” — in Islam, that is. Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Saddiq Conlan said in June 2011: “Democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”

In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”

Some Muslims in the West hold these views as well. In April 2015, Muslims in Wales plastered Cardiff with posters reading: “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires. This leads to a decayed and degraded society where crime and immorality becomes widespread and injustice becomes the norm. Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

And two Muslim groups in Denmark last June called on Muslims to boycott the elections that were held that month. One explained: “We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms, without compromising our own principles and values. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and it is a sinking ship.” The Grimshøj mosque in Aarhus agreed, issuing a statement saying that “people should stay clear of the voting booths. We have concluded that only Allah can pass laws, as he says himself in the Koran that this is so.”

Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat. A Jew can’t be a Nazi and a Nazi can’t be a Judeophile.”

Question for Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hooper and Awad: are all these Muslims “Islamophobes” for saying that Islam and democracy are incompatible, or is that honor reserved only for Carson (and other infidels)? And are either or both of you cognizant of the irony of pretending to uphold Constitutional values while demanding that a man drop out of the Presidential race for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech? Are either or both of you aware that you have thereby just become poster children for how correct Ben Carson really was?

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

Categories: CAIR, Doctor Ben Carson, Freedom, Hamas, Human rights, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Obama's affinity for Islam, Political correctness, Sharia law, Theocracy, U.S. 2016 elections, U.S. politics, U.S. President, Western media
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback

September 15, 2015

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, September 15, 2015

(It’s not really funny, but perhaps this may make up for it.

— DM)

  • Some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act.
  • The Commission is allowed to head out all by itself and search for things that are offensive. One must wonder whether it may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?
  • The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words.
  • I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so.
  • The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?
  • We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world, blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec, we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Think back twenty years and imagine that someone then had told you that developed Western democracies would spend the first decades of the twenty-first century introducing new blasphemy laws. “You mean ‘repealing’ surely?” your wise younger self would probably have said. And if you had been persuaded that, no, new blasphemy laws really were going to be brought into effect in the not-too-distant future, doubtless your follow-on question would have been, “So how did the Spanish inquisition manage to make such a comeback?”

The latest country to attempt – yet again – to impose new blasphemy laws in the twenty-first century is Canada. I say “yet again” because some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant and others were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Those Commissions soon became a focus of everybody around the world who cares about free speech. The site of a dreary bureaucrat asking journalists to explain why they had felt impelled to write something truly began to look like tragedy repeated not as farce but as mind-numbing proceduralism.

But now the worst Canadian idea of modern times appears to be back. The Quebec National Assembly is currently considering a bill that would criminalize any criticism of Islam and redesignate it as “hate speech.” Bill 59 – as this latest totalitarian procedure is titled – is being proposed by the Minister of Justice, Stephanie Vallee; and the head of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, Jacques Fremont, has already been quoted saying that he looks forward to using the new powers to target “people who would write against… the Islamic religion… on a website or on a Facebook page.”

It is possible that the whole thing is simply a money-making exercise – a more refined version of the old trick of putting up tiny speeding signs and then squeezing the cash out of every unwitting transgressor. After all, the QHRC will be able to apply for a court order “requiring [the culprit] to cease” his speech and will also be able to impose a fine of up to $10,000 for having “disseminated such speech.” The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants.

1245Jacques Fremont, head of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, has been quoted saying that he will use his new powers to target “people who would write against… the Islamic religion… on a website or on a Facebook page.” (Image source: CRDP video screenshot)

The law is so bad, the bureaucrats involved so dispiritingly awful, that it really is enough to make one move to Canada to help bring this awful law crashing down Even if you have never previously been to the country, any self-respecting free speech warrior will surely be feeling this same instinct. Certainly there will be unpleasant times ahead. The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words. So we might all have to be put either in some free speech ghetto where nice happy Canadians who don’t like free expression don’t have to hear us. Or perhaps we will have to fan out and be distributed across the country, so long as we stay far enough away from any places of learning, radio studios and the like. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act. The Commission is allowed to head out and search for things that are offensive all by itself. One must wonder whether they may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?

The first test might be to see whether we are able to identify why Michael Zehaf-Bibeau stormed the Ottawa Parliament last year and shot a Canadian soldier on ceremonial duty at the nation’s war memorial. It is hard to see how any reporting of this attack could not in some way be deemed offensive to some Muslim somewhere or to some portion of the Islamic faith, and so I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?

But then we can start to ask all the questions we have all gotten so used to not being able to ask in recent years. Will Monsieur Fremont and Minister Vallee allow anybody to write about contemporary anti-Semitism or the most virulent forms of contemporary homophobia? Admittedly these are minority interests and would never come under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, but they may come up at some point on somebody’s social media profile or the national press. In which case, will the relevant authorities ensure that no gay or Jewish person is allowed to identify this phenomenon? Or if someone does, will it be possible to ensure that he desists through a system of fines and list-shaming?

In the last decade, the Canadian system made itself look a fool to the world. We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Categories: Blasphemy, Canada, Humor, Inquisition, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Islamophobia
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

An Illegal Immigrant Catastrophe… In Europe? ISIS Refugees!

September 10, 2015

An Illegal Immigrant Catastrophe… In Europe? ISIS Refugees! PJ Media via You Tube, September 9, 2015

(Perhaps the European Union should impose multiple two state solutions: each country facing an Islamic invasion would be split, part for Islamists and part for everyone else. Why not? If that’s fine for Israel, it should work as well there. — DM)

Categories: Asylum seekers, Britain, Europe, European Union, Freedom, Germany, Hijrah, Human rights, Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Political Islam, Russia, Two state solution, Welfare for jihadists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Here are some adorable Syrian refugee thugs for you to adopt

September 7, 2015

Here are some adorable Syrian refugee thugs for you to adopt, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 7, 2015

syrian_refugees

Adorable, cuddly Syrian refugees to a good home. Attention liberal millionaires. Do you want your very own gang of Syrian Refugees (TM) to loiter around your home, throw things at you and beat you up?

Here are a whole bunch for you to take home. Yes, I’m looking at you, J.K. Rowling. Or Isaac Herzog. There’s so many that every passionately outraged leftist bigwig can have his own bunch. You just better be ready to cook for them and bring them everything while they throw it in your face.

You’ll notice the shortage of actual women and kids. The media makes a point of focusing on those, but the majority are young men. Just like Obama’s “unaccompanied children” border rush. But those are facts and we don’t need facts. Just outrage and lots of love.

So take them in. Step up for the cause. The Hungarian police will happily ship a dozen angry Syrian refugees to your home. What you do with them or what they do with you, is up to you.

 

 

Categories: Asylum seekers, Europe, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Syria war, Welfare for jihadists
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Genocide, Islam and weaponized empathy

September 5, 2015

Genocide, Islam and weaponized empathy, The Declination, The study of a civilization in decline

(A powerful narrative. — DM)

But back to the central point, why, then, if America sheltered my family, must the West turn back the refugees of Syria, of Somalia, of Libya?

Because they bring the source of infection with them. Armenians had managed, through some strength I sometimes find difficult to fully grasp, to hang on to their European culture and Christian religion through millenia of conflict with Islam. They had stubbornly resisted assimilation into Islam and its ideals. These refugees, for all that my heart yearns to give them sanctuary and a place to escape to, nonetheless carry Islam with them.

Leftists, take your Weaponized Empathy elsewhere. We understand that the world is full of terrible things, of children dying, of women enslaved. But we have to find our resolve and protect our own.

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

As some of my readers know, I am part Armenian by ancestry. It used to be a thing that didn’t enter into my daily thought process, for I am also partially of English descent and am fully American, in culture, language and appearance. Armenians can generally tell that I am of Armenian ancestry, but few others can. But as militant Islam made its presence felt, increasingly in recent years, that identity has resurfaced because of the connection my own family has to the affair.

Then I saw this photo of a drowned Syrian boy:

2464-300x180

Leftists would have you believe that us on the Right have no empathy. We wish to deny the endless migrations away from crisis areas in the Islamic world and that, they would tell us, is incompatible with human rights, dignity, empathy and so on.

My grandfather told me stories of Armenia (Armenians, then, lived throughout Anatolia), which he remembered only dimly. For he had been only a few years old when my family escaped, just ahead of the genocide in the dying Ottoman Empire. Mostly, he remembered it through the stories told in the Armenian exile community.

Entire villages were erased, all the inhabitants slaughtered, the buildings burnt to the ground, the movable wealth stolen and melted down. Nothing of them remained. In the days before the genocide, two dialects of the Armenian language existed, colloquially referred to as the Western, or Anatolian, dialect and the Eastern dialect. The Western dialect has mostly gone extinct, spoken only by a few elders in the diaspora. My grandfather could speak it, but my mother knew only a few words. Only the Eastern dialect survives. Half of Armenia ceased to exist.

These were hardy Christians who had survived on the edge of the Byzantine and Islamic worlds for centuries. They had fought alongside Greeks and Crusaders. They were among the earliest — perhaps the very first — nations to convert to Christianity. They spoke an ancient language, a variant of the Indo-European language set that appears distantly related to Greek, and unrelated to any other.

Islam nearly erased them.

Now that Christians in the Middle-East are approaching extinction, the new target is the insufficiently Muslim. The Yazidis with their syncretic half-Muslim religion, or the Kurds who elevate their own nationalism over their religion (a rarity in the Muslim world).

I feel for them. I really do. In fact, I cannot tell you how much it pains me to see these things. On my grandfather’s knee, I heard the stories of Armenian survivors. In particular, one woman stands out. She was a child when the Turks came for her family, but she was comely and pretty. Her parents and brothers were killed and she was sold as a slave for a wealthy Turk’s harem. Her story of survival and escape was terrifying to me as a child, and it instilled a sense of resolve where Islam was concerned that has not abated to this day.

Can you imagine this? Seeing your family slaughtered, and only surviving to be used as a sex slave by those who did the deed? Blacks in America lecture me about my White privilege, saying that their ancestors were slaves. Mine were slaves much more recently than theirs. Mine were slaughtered wholesale.

But back to the central point, why, then, if America sheltered my family, must the West turn back the refugees of Syria, of Somalia, of Libya?

Because they bring the source of infection with them. Armenians had managed, through some strength I sometimes find difficult to fully grasp, to hang on to their European culture and Christian religion through millenia of conflict with Islam. They had stubbornly resisted assimilation into Islam and its ideals. These refugees, for all that my heart yearns to give them sanctuary and a place to escape to, nonetheless carry Islam with them.

There are good Muslims in the world, and I want to make this clear. My own family lived only because an Ottoman official warned my great-grandfather that genocide was coming. This man, whose name I cannot remember — something that genuinely pains me, for my grandfather died when I was young and his stories are almost dream-like to me, now — paid for the ticket to America for my family, for English language lessons, and everything else needed to escape before it was too late.

I hope that I will meet this good and righteous man in the life to come. I hope God saw fit to accept him into His kingdom.

But Islam nonetheless is a contagion, even if some maintain a stubborn moral immunity to the infection. Where Islam goes, this violence will follow. You will never save all the little boys, you will never stop the slaughter. All you will do is bring it to your own shores.

And if there is something I know for certain, it is that my ancestors did not escape Islam only to see their descendants fight it again, once more in their own homes.

There were tears in my grandfather’s eyes, at times, as he recounted the things he knew. And I know what his reaction would be to this boy’s death. He would feel empathy and sadness, far more acutely than the moral busybodies of Progressive Leftism. But then he would turn off the TV and tell me the truth: that we could not help them without also dooming ourselves to the same.

So, Leftists, take your Weaponized Empathy elsewhere. We understand that the world is full of terrible things, of children dying, of women enslaved. But we have to find our resolve and protect our own.

For if we do not, it could be my son laying on that distant beach, and that I will not allow.

Categories: Armenians, Foreign policy, Immigration, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on women, Islamism, Kurds, Ottoman Empire, Yazidis
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps

August 29, 2015

Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps No airstrikes against 60 camps producing 1,000 fighters monthly

BY:
August 28, 2015 4:40 pm

Source: Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps | Washington Free Beacon

The Pentagon has not conducted airstrikes against an estimated 60 Islamic State (IS) training camps that are supplying thousands of fighters each month to the terror group, according to defense and intelligence officials.

The camps are spread throughout Islamic State-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria and are off limits in the U.S.-led international bombing campaign because of concerns about collateral damage, said officials familiar with planning and execution of the yearlong bombing campaign.

Additionally, the IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) camps have been so successful that Islamic State leaders are considering expanding the camps to Libya and Yemen. Both states have become largely ungoverned areas in recent years.

The failure to target the training camps with U.S. and allied airstrikes is raising questions among some defense and intelligence officials about the commitment of President Obama and his senior aides to the current anti-IS strategy of degrading and ultimately destroying the terror group.

“If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?” one official critical of the policy asked.

The camps are regarded by U.S. intelligence analysts as a key element in the terror group’s successes in holding and taking new territory. The main benefit of the training camps is that they are providing a continuous supply of new fighters.

IS training camps

An additional worry of intelligence analysts is that some of the foreign fighters being trained in the camps will eventually return to their home countries in Europe and North America to carry out terror attacks.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the failure to bomb the terror camps and referred questions to the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger M. Cabiness declined to say why no training camps have been bombed. “I am not going to be able to go into detail about our targeting process,” he said.

Cabiness said the U.S.-led coalition has “hit ISIL [an alternative abbreviation for the Islamic State] with more than 6,000 airstrikes.”

“The coalition has also taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps,” he said. “We have also stuck their leadership, including most recently on Aug. 18 when a U.S. military airstrike removed Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group, from the battlefield.”

Efforts also are being taken to disrupt IS finances and “make it more difficult for the group to attract new foreign fighters,” Cabiness said in an email.

A Central Command spokesman also declined to provide details of what he said were “operational engagements” against IS training camps.

“Once a target is identified as performing a hostile act, or is part of an obvious hostile force, a training camp for example, we prosecute that target in accordance with the coalition rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict,” the spokesman said.

According to the defense and intelligence officials, one reason the training camps have been off limits is that political leaders in the White House and Pentagon fear hitting them will cause collateral damage. Some of the camps are located near civilian facilities and there are concerns that casualties will inspire more jihadists to join the group.

However, military officials have argued that unless the training camps are knocked out, IS will continue to gain ground and recruit and train more fighters for its operations.

Disclosure that the IS training camps are effectively off limits to the bombing campaign comes as intelligence officials in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of the conflict, have alleged that senior U.S. officials skewed intelligence reports indicating the U.S. strategy against IS is not working or has been less effective than officials have claimed in public.

The Islamic State controls large parts of Syria and Iraq and has attracted tens of thousands of jihadists in both countries and from abroad. The exact number of fighters is not known but intelligence estimates have indicated the numbers have increased over the past year.

The military campaign, known as Operation Inherent Resolve, appears to be floundering despite a yearlong campaign of airstrikes and military training programs aimed to bolstering Iraqi military forces.

A review of Central Command reports on airstrikes since last year reveals that no attacks were carried out against training camps.

Targets instead included Islamic State vehicles, buildings, tactical units, arms caches, fighting positions, snipers, excavators, mortar and machine gun positions, bunkers, and bomb factories.

The risk-averse nature of the airstrike campaign was highlighted last month by Brig. Gen. Thomas Weidley, chief of staff for what the military calls Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.

“The coalition continues to use air power responsibly,” Weidley said July 1. “Highly precise deliveries, detailed weaponeering, in-depth target development, collateral damage mitigation, and maximized effects on Daesh, are characteristics of coalition airstrike operation in Iraq and Syria.”

Daesh is another name for the Islamic State.

“The coalition targeting process minimizes collateral damage and maximizes precise effects on Daesh,” Weidley said earlier. “Air crews are making smart decisions and applying tactical patience every day.”

Other coalition spokesman have indicated that targeting has been limited to reaction strikes against operational groups of IS fighters. “When Daesh terrorists expose themselves and their equipment, we will strike them,” Col. Wayne Marotto said May 27.

The military website Long War Journal published a map showing 52 IS training camps and noted that some may no longer be operating because of the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

According the map, among the locations in Iraq and Syria where IS is operating training camps are Mosul, Raqqah, Nenewa, Kobane, Aleppo, Fallujah, and Baiji.

The group MEMRI obtained a video of an IS training camp in Nenewa Province, Iraq, dated Oct. 1, 2014.

The video shows a desert outpost with tan tents and around 100 fighters who take part in hand-to-hand combat exercises, weapons training, and religious indoctrination.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, an analyst with the Middle East Forum, in June translated details of IS training purportedly obtained from a manual produced by a pro-IS operative in Mosul named Omar Fawaz.

Among those involved in ideological training for IS jihadists in Iraq is Bahraini cleric Turki Binali, who wrote an unofficial biography of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Al-Tamimi stated in a blog post June 24.

According to a document thought to be written by Fawaz, training differs for native Iraqis and Syrians as opposed to foreign fighters, who generally are less experienced militarily than the regional trainees.

The document also reveals IS plans to export military manpower abroad, including Libya.

“Sessions for the muhajireen [foreign fighters] brothers last 90 days or more, and at the highest level deal with organization, determination, and intelligence operation, including training on heavy weaponry in addition to comprehensive Sharia sessions and multiple tests,” according to a translation of the document. “Sessions for the Ansar from the people of Iraq and al-Sham range between 30 to 50 days.”

The process begins with an application form and questionnaire regarding education, skills, viewpoints, and whether their backgrounds can be verified.

The training then includes physical fitness, martial arts practice, weapons training, and ideological indoctrination.

After a week of training, jihadists with special abilities are selected and placed in units. The units include special forces, air defense, sniper units, a “caliphate army,” an “army of adversity,” and administrative units for those capable of using electronic devices and accounting.

“The rest are distributed in fronts and camps after the end of the military camp training according to where they are needed,” the report said, noting that all graduates are tested in Sharia at the conclusion of their training.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Pentagon inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials doctored intelligence reports in an attempt to present more optimistic accounts of the U.S. military’s efforts in the conflict.

The probe was triggered by a DIA analyst who stated that Central Command officials were improperly rewriting intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama.

The Daily Beast reported Wednesday that senior military and intelligence officials inappropriately pressured U.S. terrorism analysts to alter estimates of the strength of the Islamic State to portray the group as weaker.

Central Command, on its website, stated that in the year since the Iraq operation began on Aug. 7, 2014, a total of 6,419 air strikes were carried out.
Targets damaged or destroyed include 119 tanks, 340 Humvees, 510 staging areas, 3,262 buildings, 2,577 fighting positions, 196 oil infrastructure targets, and 3,680 “other” targets not further identified.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoon of the day

August 12, 2015

H/t Joopklepzeiker

 

0115

Categories: Humor, Iranian penal code, Islamic slaughter
Tags: , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Britain: The “Struggle of Our Generation”

August 10, 2015

Britain: The “Struggle of Our Generation”, The Gatestone Institute, Samuel Westrop, August 10, 2015

  • “We’ve got to show that if you say ‘yes I condemn terror — but the Kuffar are inferior’, or ‘violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter’ — then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not, and in a lot of cases it’s not unwittingly, you are providing succour to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence.” — Prime Minister David Cameron.
  • In a series of religious rulings published on its website, the Islamic Network charity advocated the murder of apostates; encouraged Muslims to hate non-Muslims; stated that when non-Muslims die, “the whole of humanity are relieved;” and described Western civilisation as “evil.”
  • The Charity Commission’s solution, however, was to give the charity’s trustees booklets titled, “How to manage risks in your charity,” and warn them not to do it again.

On July 20, Prime Minister David Cameron outlined his government’s plans to counteract Islamic extremism, which he described as the “struggle of our generation.”

In a speech before Ninestiles School, in the city of Birmingham, Cameron articulated a view of the Islamist threat that, just a couple of years ago, few else in British politics would have dared to support.

In a report for BBC Radio 4, the journalist John Ware described Cameron’s speech, and the government’s proposed counter-extremism measures, as “something no British government has ever done in my lifetime: the launch of a formal strategy to recognize, challenge and root out ideology.”

Cameron’s speech was wide-ranging. It addressed the causes, methods and consequences of Islamist extremism.

1199(Image source: BBC video screenshot)

We must recognize, Cameron reasoned, that Islamist terror is the product of Islamist ideology. It is definitely not, he argued, “because of historic injustices and recent wars, or because of poverty and hardship. This argument, what I call the grievance justification, must be challenged. … others might say: it’s because terrorists are driven to their actions by poverty. But that ignores the fact that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families or a Western university education.”

“Extreme doctrine” is to blame — a doctrine that is “hostile to basic liberal values … Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation. … which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others.” This is a doctrine “based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam.”

People are drawn to such extremist ideas, Cameron argued, because:

“[Y]ou don’t have to believe in barbaric violence to be drawn to the ideology. No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalisation. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.

“It may begin with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death. Put another way, the extremist world view is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination.”

To counteract the extremist threat, Cameron concludes, the government will “tackle both parts of the creed — the non-violent and violent. This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence — but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.”

Further, no longer will extremist groups be able to burnish their moderate credentials by pointing to ISIS as the Islamic bogeyman:

“We’ve got to show that if you say ‘yes I condemn terror — but the Kuffar are inferior’, or ‘violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter’ – then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not, and in a lot of cases it’s not unwittingly, you are providing succour to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence.

For example, I find it remarkable that some groups say ‘We don’t support ISIL’ as if that alone proves their anti-extremist credentials. And let’s be clear Al-Qaeda don’t support ISIL. So we can’t let the bar sink to that level. Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organisation cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists.”

Rather radically for a Western leader, Cameron also asserted that, “simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work… it is an exercise in futility to deny that. And more than that, it can be dangerous. To deny it has anything to do with Islam means you disempower the critical reforming voices; the voices that are challenging the fusing of religion and politics…”

Cameron’s speech was groundbreaking. No previous Prime Minister in past decades would have dared to make such statements. This is not to say, however, that it is without fault.

Cameron is not just talk. An “Extremism Analysis Unit” has been set up within the Home Office, which will serve to tackle Islamist extremism, including “non-violent” groups. According to the journalist John Ware, the new body is currently preparing lists of extremist preachers and groups.

More importantly, a variety of new legislation is being brought before Parliament. However, some of the proposed laws, critics argue, are draconian. “Banning Orders” will outlaw designated “extremist groups.” “Extremism Disruption Orders,” meanwhile, will restrict designated “extremists” from appearing on television, or publishing without the authorities’ approval. And “Closure Orders” will allow the government to close any institution deemed guilty of promoting extremism.

Cameron has correctly and radically diagnosed the problem of Islamic extremism. His solutions, however, do not appear promising.

A more useful next step would be for the government to tackle its own relationships with extremist groups. Britain’s registered charities offer a particularly vivid example of Islamist extremism going unchallenged.

In 2014, I wrote about the Islamic Network, a group that describes itself as “a da’wah[proselytizing] organisation which aims to promote awareness and understanding of the religion of Islam.”

In a series of religious rulings published on its website, the Islamic Network charity advocated themurder of apostates; encouraged Muslims to hate non-Muslims; stated that when non-Muslims die, “the whole of humanity are relieved;” and described Western civilisation as “evil.” Further, the Islamic Network directed a great deal of hatred towards the Jews. Its website claimed: “The Jews strive their utmost to corrupt the beliefs, morals and manners of the Muslims. The Jews scheme and crave after possessing the Muslim lands, as well as the lands of others.”

In spite of these views, the Islamic Network is a registered charity, which means it is entitled to subsidy from the taxpayer.

As a result of revealing the material published on the Islamic Network’s website, as well as several complaints submitted to the Charity Commission, the government opened an inquiry into the charity. After a year of deliberation, the Charity Commission published its report, which concluded that the Islamic Network had indeed published extremist material.

The Charity Commission’s solution, however, was to give the charity’s trustees booklets titled, “How to manage risks in your charity,” and warn them not to do it again.

Britain may finally have a government that understands the problem of Islamist extremism, but if government bodies fail to challenge extremist charities such as the Islamic Network, then what use is this enlightenment?

The Islamic Network is but one of many dozens of examples. Why is the British organizationInterpal, for example, still allowed to be a registered charity? Interpal is a designated terrorist organization under United States law. Its trustees regularly meet with senior leaders of the terror group Hamas. In 2013, for instance, Interpal trustee Essam Yusuf took part in a ceremony with the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, at which they expressed praise for Hamas’ military wing, the Al Qassam Brigades, and glorified “martyrdom.”

Or what of Islamic Relief, one of Britain’s largest charities? Established by the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Relief’s directors have included Ahmed Al-Rawi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader who, in 2004, supported jihad against British and American troops in Iraq; and Essam El-Haddad, who is accused by an Egyptian court of divulging Egyptian state secrets to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and using Islamic Relief to finance global terrorism.

Despite Islamic Relief’s links to Islamist extremism, the charity continues to receive millions of pounds from the British government.

David Cameron’s speech on July 20 should be applauded. If another political party had won the recent general election, no such speech would have been made. But before the Prime Minister turns his hand to censorship, perhaps the government should address extremist groups closer to home.

Categories: Antisemitism, Culture, David Cameron, England, Hamas, Human rights, Iranian proxies, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic jihad, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamic war on Christians, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Khamenei, Moral equivalence, Multiculturalism, Palestinians, UK
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »