WAKE UP EUROPE ISRAEL IS FIGHTING YOUR WAR, You Tube, June 1, 2015
H/t joopklepzeiker
WAKE UP EUROPE ISRAEL IS FIGHTING YOUR WAR, You Tube, June 1, 2015
H/t joopklepzeiker
Turkey, Our Ally
June 4, 2015 by Robert Ellis
via Turkey, Our Ally.

On his visit to Turkey in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama proclaimed that Turkey and the U.S. can build “a model partnership” and in an interview with Time in January 2012, he spoke of “the bonds of trust” he had forged with certain leaders, including Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Traditional Turkish foreign policy, based on Atatürk’s dictum “peace at home and peace abroad,” has been replaced by a delusion, created by former foreign and now prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, that Turkey can restore its former Ottoman magnificence. As Davutoglu proclaimed in Sarajevo in 2009, “Like in the 16th century, when the Ottoman Balkans were rising, we will once again make the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, together with Turkey, the center of world politics.”
The main thrust of this new policy has been to create a Muslim Brotherhood crescent running from Egypt through Turkey to Syria to rival Iran’s Shia crescent, but this policy has been a dismal failure. Turkish ambassadors have been withdrawn from Syria, Egypt, Israel, Libya and Yemen, and recently from Austria and the Vatican, after their acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide, resulting in what Ibrahim Kalin, Erdogan’s chief adviser, in a tweet two years ago, called “precious loneliness.”
It was the same Kalin who, in a keynote speech at the Istanbul Forum in 2012, rejected the European model of secular politics, democracy and pluralism in favor of what he termed a “value-based” (read: Islamist) foreign policy. However, the AKP government’s attempt to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has seriously backfired, but they have still not given up trying to drag the U.S. into the quagmire. Turkey’s proposal for the creation of a safe zone and no-fly zone in Syria has been met with no response, and in return Turkey has denied its NATO ally the use of Incirlik airbase for sorties against Islamic State (ISIL).
Consequently, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) in Washington has in its April report concluded that Turkey is an increasingly undependable ally, and that because of the fundamental strategic disparities between Ankara and Washington, the U.S. should look to other regional players, for example, the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government), for support.
An overriding factor in the BPC’s conclusions has been the Turkish government’s ideologically driven backing for extremist Sunni groups in Syria, where it has acted as a highway for would-be jihadists, who have been given free rein to travel through, recruit from, equip, operate and recuperate in Turkey.
Furthermore, a report from the U.N.’s Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team concludes that Turkey has also provided the primary routes for arms smuggled to ISIL and the Al-Nusrah Front, an Al-Qaida affiliate.
In the run-up to the Turkish elections on Sunday, there is a furor about video footage published last Friday by secular daily Cumhuriyet, which shows a shipment of weapons and ammunition disguised as humanitarian aid for Syria on trucks belonging to MIT (Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization), Erdogan’s Praetorian Guard. Reuters has also confirmed how MIT helped deliver arms to parts of Syria under Islamist rebel control during late 2013 and early 2014.
Characteristically, the public prosecutors and gendarmerie officers involved in intercepting the arms shipment have been arrested and charged with attempting to overthrow the Turkish government. A gag order has been imposed on coverage of the scandal and President Erdogan has personally threatened Cumhuriyet’s editor-in-chief with retribution. He has now filed a criminal complaint against the newspaper and its editor, demanding a life sentence.
The Turkish military is also uneasy about the charges brought against the gendarmerie officers involved, as their actions fall under military jurisdiction.
However, there is no reason to believe President Erdogan will give way without a struggle. As the Bipartisan Policy Center notes, losing power would be tantamount to a prison sentence, at best, and is simply not an option.
ISIS-Affiliated Group: More Rocket Attacks on Israel Coming
The Islamic State linked group that fired rockets at southern Israel on Wednesday says it will continue “attacking the Jews.”
By Yaakov Levi
First Publish: 6/4/2015, 9:01 AM
via ISIS-Affiliated Group: More Rocket Attacks Coming – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva.
That happens if you keep playing the thit for that game.

Terrorists in Gaza
Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash 90
The Islamist group that fired rockets at southern Israel Wednesday night said Thursday that it would continue its “way of Jihad” and “attack the Jews” – whether or not Hamas approved. And the next attack, it said, would come within hours.
In a statement, the “Sheikh Amar Hadid Brigades” said that the rockets were fired in revenge for “the death of an Islamic State member in Gaza by Hamas members.”
“We have repeated that we will continue in the way of Jihad against the Jews, the enemies of Allah. No one will stop us from fulfilling our obligation and attacking the Jews.”
Several days ago, the same jihadist group took responsibility for the firing of a Grad rocket at Ashdod last week.
The group has since presented Hamas with an ultimatum demanding that it be allowed to attack Israel from Gaza and on Thursdaysaid it would conduct another attack on the Jewish state within 12 hours.
Earlier this week, a group claiming to be associated with ISIS operating in Gaza claimed it killed a top Hamas commander. According to the group, which calls itself the Army of the Islamic State, Saber Siam was killed when ISIS operatives placed a bomb on his car, blowing it up with him inside.
Siam was killed, the group said, because he was “a partner in a declared war against religion and against Muslims, working for the heretical government in Gaza.”
ISIS warned Hamas to immediately “end its war against religion in Gaza” or “face the consequences.” The group also sent out warnings on social media to Gaza residents to stay away from Hamas offices and buildings, lest they find themselves swept up in attacks against the group.
On Thursday, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said that the IDF would continue attacking all terror threats against Israel, inside Gaza or out of it.
“Even if the groups that fired rockets at Israel Wednesday night were gangs of disaffected Jihadists seeking to challenge Hamas by attacking us, we see Hamas as responsible for these attacks. We will not tolerate attacks on our civilians.”
How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 3, 2015
(Much the same nonsense infects foreign policy and propels the notion that the Islamic State is not Islamic. — DM)
What is Islam? The obvious dictionary definition answer is that it’s a religion, but legally speaking it actually enjoys all of the advantages of race, religion and culture with none of the disadvantages.
Islam is a religion when mandating that employers accommodate the hijab, but when it comes time to bring it into the schools, places that are legally hostile to religion, American students are taught about Islam, visit mosques and even wear burkas and recite Islamic prayers to learn about another culture. Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race.
Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.
The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.
Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.
By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.
Muslims are treated as a racial collective rather than a group that shares a set of views about the world.
That has made it impossible for the left to deal with ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or non-Muslims from Muslim families like Salman Rushdie. If Islam is more like skin color than an ideology, then ex-Muslims, like ex-Blacks, cannot and should not exist. Under such conditions, atheism is not a debate, but a hate crime. Challenging Islam does not question a creed; it attacks the existence of an entire people.
Muslim atheists, unlike all other atheists, are treated as race traitors both by Muslims and leftists. The left has accepted the Brotherhood’s premise that the only authentic Middle Easterner is a Muslim (not a Christian or a Jew) and that the only authentic Muslim is a Salafist (even if they don’t know the word).
The racialization of Islam has turned blasphemy prosecutions into an act of tolerance while making a cartoon of a religious figure racist even when it is drawn by ex-Muslims like Bosch Fawstin. The New York Times will run photos of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” covered in dung and pornography, but refuses to run Mohammed cartoons because it deems one anti-religious and the other racist.
The equating of Islam with Arabs and Pakistanis has made it nearly impossible for the media to discuss violence against Christians in those parts of the world. The racialization of Islam has made Arab Christians, like Bangladeshi atheists, a contradiction in terms. The ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi could only be covered by giving them a clearly defined separate identity. Middle Eastern Christians are increasingly moving to avoid being categorized as Arabs because it is the only way to break through this wall of ignorance.
While racialization is the biggest Muslim privilege, race provides no protection for many Islamic religious practices. Muslims then seek religious discrimination laws to protect these practices even if it’s often a matter of debate whether their lawsuits protect their religious practices or impose them on others.
Islam is a theocracy. When it leaves the territories conquered by Islam, it seeks to replicate that theocracy through violence and by adapting the legal codes of the host society to suit its purposes.
Islamic blasphemy laws are duplicated using hate crime laws. Employers are obligated to make religious concessions to Muslim employees because of laws protecting religious practices, but many of these practices, such as refusing to carry out jobs involving pork, liquor or Seeing Eye dogs, are really ways of theocratically forcing behaviors that Islam forbids out of public life much as Saudi Arabia or Iran do.
Accusations of bigotry are used to outlaw ideas that Islam finds blasphemous and religious protection laws are used to banish behaviors that it disapproves of. By switching from race to religion and back again, Islamists construct a virtual theocracy by exploiting laws designed to protect different types of groups.
Religions in America traded theocracy for religious freedom. They gave up being able to impose their practices on others in exchange for being able to freely practice their own religions. Islam rejects religious freedom. It exploits it to remove the freedom of belief and practice of others. When it cannot do so through religious protection laws, it does so through claims of bigotry.
Religions were not meant to be immunized from blasphemy because that is theocracy. Instead religions are protected from restrictions, rather than from criticism. Islam insists on being protected from both. It makes no concessions to the freedom of others while demanding maximum religious accommodation.
While race and religion are used to create negative spaces in which Islam cannot be challenged, the creed is promoted positively as a culture. Presenting Islam as a culture allows it easier entry into schools and cultural institutions. Islamic missionary activity uses the Western longing for oriental exotica that its political activists loudly decry to inject it into secular spaces that would ordinarily be hostile to organized religion.
Leftists prefer to see Islam as a culture rather than a religion. Their worldview is not open to Islam’s clumsy photocopy of the deity that they have already rejected in their own watered down versions of Christianity and Judaism. But they are constantly seeking an aimless and undefined spirituality in non-Western cultures that they imagine are free of the materialism and hypocrisy of Western culture.
Viewing Islam as a culture allows the left to project its own ideology on a blank slate. That is why liberals remain passionately convinced that Islam is a religion of social justice. Their Islam is a mirror that reflects back their own views and ideas at them. They pretend to respect Islam as a culture without bothering to do any more than learn a few words and names so that they can seem like world travelers.
By morphing into a culture, Islam sheds its content and becomes a style, a form of dress, a drape of cloth, a style of beard, a curvature of script and a whiff of spices. It avoids uncomfortable questions about what the Koran actually says and instead sells the religion as a meaningful lifestyle. This approach has always had a great deal of appeal for African-Americans who were cut off from their own heritage through Islamic slavery, but it also enjoys success with white upper class college students.
The parents of those students often learn too late that Islam is not just another interchangeable monotheistic religion, that its mosques are not places where earnest grad students lecture elderly congregants about social justice and that its laws are not reducible to the importance of being nice to others.
Like a magician using misdirection, these transformations from religion to race, from race to culture and from culture to religion, distract Americans from asking what Islam really believes. By combining race, religion and culture, it replicates the building blocks of its theocracy within our legal and social spaces.
Separately each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. By combining them, Islam gains the advantages of all three, and by moving from one to the other, it escapes all of the disadvantages. The task of its critics is to deracialize Islam, to reduce it to an ideology and to ask what it really believes.
Islam is a privileged religion. And there’s a word for that. Theocracy.
Egypt Says NY Times Promoting Muslim Brotherhood Agitprop, The Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, June 3, 2015
(Obama has spread and relied upon much the same meme as the NY Times and Washington Post. — DM)
The New York Times building in New York City
If the New York Times values objective reporting, then it must mention the Brotherhood’s calls to violence in its coverage as well as the many other instances of violence that the group has been involved in.
*********************
The Egyptian ambassador to the U.S. has written a public letter toThe New York Times protesting “its unquestioning adoption of Moslem Brotherhood’s propaganda” and false characterization of the Islamist group as non-violent.
Ambassador Mohamed Tawfik’s letter was written around the same time that the Egyptian embassy released three videos of calls to violence made on Muslim Brotherhood television networks based in Turkey.
The networks’ coverage promoted explicit calls for killing Egyptian police officers and attacking foreign companies and embassies. A threat was also made to carry out regional attacks against the interests of countries who support the Egyptian government.
Egypt is infuriated at the Times as well as the Washington Post for repeatedly asserting that the Brotherhood is non-violent. In response to the Times suggestion that the Egyptian government’s prosecution of the Brotherhood is pushing it towards terrorism, the Egyptian ambassador writes:
This statement demonstrates, at best, a complete misunderstanding of the roots of radicalism. At worst, it amounts to a justification for violent extremism. Today, terrorists in Egypt are part of a network of extremists who are bound by a singular distorted ideology, and by a shared goal of taking our region back hundreds of years. They are inspired by the radical teachings of the former Moslem Brotherhood leader Sayyid Kutb [Qutb]. Terrorists in Egypt share the same evil goals as terrorists in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Indeed, Ambassador Tawfik is correct that the New York Times separates Islamists from terrorists and extremists. The Times editorial condemns “relentless and sweeping crackdown on Islamists, under the baseless contention that they are inherently dangerous.”
The New York Times described sentencing to death of former President Morsi and 100 other Brotherhood members as “deplorable.” It describes the Brotherhood as having renounced violence in the 1970s.
However, Morsi and the defendants were sentenced for his involvement in prison breaks in 2011 that freed 20,000 inmates, including Morsi himself. The Egyptian government says the attacks were well-orchestrated and involved participation by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Tawfik chastises the Times for failing to mention that the prison break was a violent operation that resulted in the deaths of prison guards and inmates and freed members of Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Egyptian ambassador also excoriated the Washington Post in February for “toeing the Muslim Brotherhood line” and advised it to be more balance in order to “save whatever is left of your credibility in the Arab world.”
Egyptian President El-Sisi came into power after the popularly-supported military intervention in July 2013 overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government. The move had the support of a broad spectrum of Egyptian society with public endorsements from secular-democratic activists, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University and the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
The overthrow came after Morsi (whose election itself was marred bycharges of voter fraud) seized far-sweeping powers for himself, essentially negating any semblance of a democratic government.
El-Sisi is often characterized as an anti-democratic strongman; a depiction that his government is now challenging.
He argues that these strongman tactics are necessary because a democratic transition cannot be completed without stability, economic development and a confrontation with Islamism (also known as Political Islam). He asks the West to understand that there is a “civilizational gap between us and you” and it will take time to modernize.
A study commissioned by the Egyptian government criticized its heavy-handedness but concluded that banning Islamist parties is required for the country’s stability and democratic development. It recommended a program to separate politics and religion.
The Egyptian government sees the Islamic State (ISIS) as a natural outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its website warns that the Muslim Brotherhood has a network of fronts in America that are disguised as civil society organizations.
El-Sisi called for a reformation in Islamic interpretation in January 2014 and made a dramatic call on the Islamic religious establishment to address problematic teachings this January that received widespread media coverage. He has explicitly said that Egypt should be “a civil state, not an Islamic one” and defined the ideology of the enemy as Political Islam in an interview on FOX News Channel.
El-Sisi is also confronting Islamist terrorism internationally, in addition to its fight against Islamic State in the Sinai Peninsula. His government is an enemy of Hamas and is as minimally anti-Israel as can be expected of an Arab leader.
Egypt has conducted airstrikes on ISIS in Libya and is materially supporting the Libyan government in its civil war against Islamist forces. Egypt and Libya are complaining about a lack of American backing. A new Egyptian-backed offensive is said to be in the works.
El-Sisi is assembling an Arab rapid-reaction force of 40-50,000 troops that can quickly be deployed to fight Islamic State and other terrorists. Egypt is also taking part in the Arab military intervention against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
El-Sisi also made a historic visit to a Coptic Christian church during mass on Christmas Eve. He challenged the Egyptian honor culture when he apologized to a woman who was raped in Tahrir Square.
Major American media outlets have fallen for the falsehood that the Muslim Brotherhood is non-violent. It is true that the Egyptian government is often criticized for its human rights record, but coverage of those accusations should not automatically exempt the Brotherhood and other Islamists from blame.
If the New York Times values objective reporting, then it must mention the Brotherhood’s calls to violence in its coverage as well as the many other instances of violence that the group has been involved in.
Obama Officials Claim Iran’s Nuclear Program Frozen or Rolled Back During Negotiations
BY: Follow @DavidRutz
June 3, 2015 5:00 am
A New York Times report Tuesday shows increases in Iran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel are “undercutting” the Obama administration’s claims to have “frozen” or rolled back its nuclear program during a period of negotiations.
With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period.
But Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why. One possibility is that Iran has run into technical problems that have kept it from converting some of its enriched uranium into fuel rods for reactors, which would make the material essentially unusable for weapons. Another is that it is increasing its stockpile to give it an edge if the negotiations fail.
President Obama told CNN’s Candy Crowley Dec. 21 that “you look at an example like Iran, over the last year and a half, since we began negotiations with them, that’s probably the first year and a half in which Iran has not advanced its nuclear program in the last decade.”
“Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material,” Obama said during his State of the Union Jan. 20.
In an interview with Vox posted in February, Obama said, “We have been able to freeze the program for the first time and, in fact, roll back some elements of its program, like its stockpiles of ultra highly enriched uranium.” During his weekly online address April 4, Obama claimed Iran “had agreed that it will not stockpile the materials it needs to build a weapon.”
Secretary of State John Kerry told This Week March 1, “The fact is, the interim agreement has been adhered to. It has been inspected. We have proven that we have slowed Iran’s–even set back–its nuclear program.”
In various press briefings, spokeswomen Marie Harf and Jen Psaki made similar assertions about the impact of the Joint Plan of Action, as has White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
Harf called the New York Times story “bizarre” and inaccurate Tuesday. However, analysis from the Institute for Science and International Security agreed with the article’s contention that Iran effectively had stockpiled enough low-enriched uranium that it would be nearly “impossible for them to meet those obligations in practice,” as blogger Omri Ceren put it.
Iran Implicated in Foiled Hezbollah Attacks on Europe, The Clarion Project, RYAN MAURO, June 2, 2015
Iranian Basij volunteer militia members (Photo: © Reuters)
If this is the behavior of the Iranian regime when it has every incentive to temporarily play nice, then what will it do when it breaks free of sanctions and uses trade deals to disarm the U.S. of its economic leverage?
********************
The arrest of a Hezbollah terrorist in Cyprus is believed to have foiled attacks in Europe, probably against Israeli or Jewish targets. The plots show that Iran is as committed to international terrorism as ever and is not the least bit dissuaded by the prospect of a lucrative nuclear deal.
The terrorist came to Cyprus last month and had nearly two tons of ammonium nitrate—a substance commonly used for making bombs—in his basement. That’s about the amount that was used to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 that took down a federal building and killed 168 people.
It is suspected that he was planning on attacking Israelis, and there is evidence linking the operative to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. It is also believed that the operative belonged to a network planning on using Cyprus as a “port of export” for additional terrorist plots in Europe.
The National Council of Resistance in Iran, an opposition group, says that a Cyprus newspaper reported that he was trained in Iran by the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
In 2012, a Hezbollah terrorist was arrested and later found guilty of planning attacks on Israeli tourists in Cyprus. His possession of a Swedish passport enabled him to conduct surveillance on targets in Europe. It was discovered that he was tracking flights from Israel to Cyprus, researching bus routes used by Israeli tourists and assessing a hospital parking lot. He also traveled to France and the Netherlands for Hezbollah.
The foiled plot helps make an important point about the nature of the Iranian regime. If there was any time for the regime to resist its impulses to engage in international terrorism, it is now.
An Iranian-sponsored plot could unravel the nuclear deal that could strengthen its “Islamic Revolution,” bolster the regime and allow it to dramatically increase its sponsorship of terrorism. And yet, even under these conditions, the Iranian regime can’t help but orchestrate terror plots in Europe with the objective of killing hundreds of innocents.
If this is the behavior of the Iranian regime when it has every incentive to temporarily play nice, then what will it do when it breaks free of sanctions and uses trade deals to disarm the U.S. of its economic leverage?
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Videos Call for Violence, The Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, June 2, 2015
Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt (Photo: © Reuters)
Egypt has released three videos of Muslim Brotherhood television networks in Turkey advocating violence against the Egyptian police, foreigners, embassies and interests in the region connected to countries that support President El-Sisi.
On Thursday, the Brotherhood’s English-language website announced a decision for revolution “with all its means and mechanisms” against the Egyptian government. The announcement references a declaration signed by 150 Islamic scholars that is less ambiguous in calling for jihad, also published in English.
The first video is from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Rabaa TV network launched in Turkey in 2013. The Egyptian government says the host in the video is a member of the Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya terrorist group.
The host is seen reading a statement from the “Revolutionary Youth Coalition;” a group that is almost certainly a Brotherhood front established to give itself plausible deniability while inciting and orchestrating terrorism. The vague terminology is an attempt to give its cause greater legitimacy by appearing more inclusive and broad-based.
The Brotherhood station reads the statement that demands the departure of all foreign Arabs, foreign Africans, embassy personnel, foreign companies and tourists by the end of (last) February. All governments must end their support for the Egyptian government “or else all of their interests in countries of the Middle East will be exposed to severe assaults or will be put in situations that nobody wants.”
The threat warns that henceforth there will be “no concessions or mercy.”
The second video is dated February 24 and is from a satellite network named Misr Alaan that the Egyptian government says was founded by the Brotherhood last year. The Arab press says it was launched from Turkey with Brotherhood sponsorship. The network’s staff said its purpose is to reach a broader audience than the other Islamist channels in Turkey.
The video comes with an English translation that shows the host of a show explicitly urging the murder of Egyptian police and unspecified revolutionaries to rout the Egyptian soldiers who aid the police in the confrontation. His instructions are clear: “Kill them.”
“I say to the wives of all officers and the sons of all officers: Please be aware, your husbands will be dead. Your children will be orphans,” the host says while adding the sons of police officers may be kidnapped and claiming that the revolutionaries have the home addresses of the police.
The third video, also from Misr Alaan, shows a statement being read by a spokesman calling in from the “Revolutionary Punishment Movement,” continuing the pattern of using new, non-descriptive titles.
The speaker is asked about his group and he only says that it is a youth movement involved in the revolutions since the beginning, referring to the ousting of Egyptian President Mubarak. He condemns the arrests of female members of the group and declares there will be “reciprocal treatment.”
The speaker calls for the kidnapping and killing of Egyptian security personnel by the “lions” of this revolution. He then gives out the names of specific police officers to target without any interruption from the host.
On Thursday, May 28, the Brotherhood’s English-language website carried a statement by spokesperson Mohamed Montaser announcing “a final decision, after consulting its popular base, that the revolutionary option with all its means and mechanisms is its strategic choice from which there will be no retreat.”
The announcement appears to be a response to a reported rift within the Brotherhood between the older and more pragmatic leadership and the more militant youth advocating violence and disruption to society. It reiterates the legitimacy of the Brotherhood leadership and claims that it is inclusive of the youth.
The statement does not explicitly discuss the topic of violence but it certainly does not make the case for non-violence. It gives every reason for an Islamist to believe that violent jihad against the Egyptian government is now permissible.
The intention to inspire violence is detectable in how the Brotherhood references a declaration signed by 150 scholars that declares the Egyptian government to be an “enemy of Allah” waging “war against Islam.” The listed offenses qualify it as a target for violent jihad.
“It is an Islamic duty of the whole Muslim Ummah, rulers and peoples alike, to resist this regime and to seek to break it using all legitimate means in order to safeguard the fundamentals of the Ummah and to maintain the higher objectives of Islam,” it says.
The declaration most clearly instigates violence in points 4 and 6 regarding retribution for acts against the Brotherhood and for forcibly freeing prisoners:
“4. Rulers, judges, officers, soldiers, muftis, media persons, politicians and any other party proven beyond any doubt to be involved in the crimes of violating honor, bloodshed and illegal killing, even if through inciting such acts, are considered, from Islamic perspective, murderers to whom all rulings related to the crime of murder are applicable. They must receive qisas (retribution punishment) within the Islamic Law limits.”
“6. The nation must do its best to free any person, especially women, detained as a result of opposing the coup and demanding respect of the nation’s will and freedom. No effort should be spared to release them using the means approved by Islam.”
The Brotherhood is aware of what it’s calling for. If it didn’t want violent jihad, it would add a disclaimer about the declaration only authorizing non-violence. Instead, there’s only a mention of civil disobedience as a tactic without any kind of rejection of violence in point 13:
“13. We demand all forces opposing the coup and all free people, inside and outside Egypt, to combine efforts in resistance of this criminal regimes and to use all appropriate means such as civil disobedience and any other tool to purge the country of the coup’s tyranny and crimes and to stand up for the martyrs’ cause.”
The declaration is especially significant because brings the Brotherhood a step closer towards officially supporting violence in Egypt; a direction it’s been moving towards in its Arabic content.
In January, the Brotherhood announced a “new phase…where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.”
Any doubt as to whether the Brotherhood meant violence is put to rest by what follows:
“Imam al-Banna [the founder of the Brotherhood] prepared the jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers and the second [Supreme] Guide Hassan al-Hudaybi reconstructed the ‘secret apparatus’ to bleed the British occupiers.”
The call to violence in Arabic was shortly followed by one in English titled, “Egypt Muslim Brotherhood Reiterates Commitment to Non-Violence.” The contradiction is reflective of a long-standing patternwhere the Brotherhood speaks more diplomatically in English and more “jihadist” in Arabic. Contrary to assertions that the Brotherhood officially abandoned violence, the group has consistently endorsed and engaged in violent jihad since its supposed “moderation.”
The newly-released videos are just a sample of the proof that the Brotherhood’s “moderate” persona is a contrived mirage.
The “Speech-Denialists,” The Gatestone Institute, Daniel Mael, June 2, 2015
On college campuses, teachers, students and sometimes even administrators seem to have become ever more eager to block any idea with which they disagree.
Often it appears as if their first impulse is to demonize the individual or organization presenting the offending idea, rather than to address the substance of the argument and open a discussion in the “free marketplace of ideas.”
On the campus of Lake Superior State University, wall postings “deemed offensive, sexist, vulgar, discriminatory or suggestive will not be approved.” The campus code of conduct states that if students fail to comply, they may be disciplined — a rule that was named “Speech Code of the Month” for May by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Lake Superior State University’s campus code of conduct states that wall postings “deemed offensive, sexist, vulgar, discriminatory or suggestive will not be approved.” (Image source: Bobak Ha’Eri/Wikimedia Commons)
Increasingly, individuals and groups, perhaps unknowingly betraying the spirit of classic liberalism, seek to shame or ridicule dissenting opinion into silence. Both in politics and on college campuses, it seems as if aggressive shaming has replaced the art of persuasion as the favored means of argumentation. Substantive, non-politically correct discussion is now at a premium.
In her recently published book The Silencing, life-long liberal and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers documents the escalating efforts of people claiming to be liberal to silence dissent on issues they regard as contentious. The tactic follows what Powers calls the “authoritarian impulse to silence.”
On issues ranging from campus “speech codes” to feminism, these self-described liberals are unwilling to entertain the notion that a well-intentioned individual from the other side of the aisle might have a different remedy for the problems of the day.
When feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute gave a lecture on the campus of Oberlin University on the topic of campus sexual assault and due process, protesters labeled her a “rape denialist” and claimed that they felt “unsafe.” Perhaps we should begin calling such protesters “due-process denialists.”
When the subject is religion, these “liberals” maintain a disingenuous double standard. “While the illiberal left seems to hold a special animosity to Christianity,” Powers notes, in a remark that could also apply to Israel, “it is strangely protective of Islam, despite the fact that orthodox Muslims oppose same-sex marriage.” Not only are Muslim attitudes toward gay marriage overlooked or roadsided completely, but if anyone dares to discuss the issue of minorities in the Muslim-majority world, they are labeled “racist,” “Islamophobic,” or other slurs at arm’s reach.
Meanwhile, critics are unrelenting in their animosity toward observant Christians’ views of homosexuality. “If you think about it, we are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,” Senator Marco Rubio recently told CBN News. “Because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”
Last year, at Brandeis University, when I sought to bring a human rights display highlighting the oppression of LGBTQ individuals in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iran, the initiative was blocked in a flood of administrative bureaucracy. The member of the administration with whom I met was clearly not thrilled by the idea.
Meetings with a gay rights group and the Muslim Students Association (MSA), however, were just as telling. Hoping to solicit partnerships in the initiative, I explained to leaders and members of both organizations that the project was not about Islam, but about how, on a routine basis, certain governments murder people who identify as LGBTQ. Members of the gay rights organization expressed concern about “Islamophobia,” while members of the Muslim Students Association expressed concern about “homophobia.” The initiative was rejected. Both groups evidently prioritized the emotional and intellectual comfort of the campus community over drawing attention to the plight of innocent LGBTQ individuals in the Muslim world.
In denying the average college student the opportunity to hear, think, question and learn, these minority organizations violated the basic principles of a liberal arts education and what higher learning should presumably be about: challenging assumptions and talking openly about issues that might cause discomfort. It is still puzzling why the LGBTQ club and the MSA are not at the forefront of defending other members of their respective groups, regardless of where they may live.
Both micro-sensitivity and political correctness require at best, obfuscating information, and at worst, silencing it. It is incumbent upon those who recognize the dangers of the ever-expanding “speech-denialists” in the “political correctness” movement to put up a fight — figuratively, of course.
Satire | Op-Ed: Jews Take Up Too Much Space, Israel National News, Yehezkel Laing, June 1, 2015
(Please see also,
.– DM)
In July 2022 the UN passed a resolution declaring that for “for the Jews’ own safety” it has been decided to evacuate them to the moon where they would be granted rights to colonize, with the understanding that the world’s lien to the moon would “not be harmed or diminished”. The same resolution removed all Jewish citizenship rights on Earth.
All this I recount in order to properly put into context the latest “development”. As most of you have no doubt heard by now, yesterday the UN assembly unanimously passed a resolution accusing the Jews of having “stolen the moon”. The resolution states that if we do not relinquish full rights the world community will be left with no choice but to attack.
While there are several influential Jewish politicians and scientists who claim we can colonize Jupiter – I do not believe this is feasible at this time. Even if we were successful, where would it end? Would we be forced to colonize another solar system, another galaxy, another universe? If we do not make a stand here, where will we ever make a stand?
**********************
I am not the type of person who seeks publicity for myself and I wouldn’t even be writing this if it could be avoided. But since circumstances leave me no choice, I have decided to break my silence and reveal my true role in the events of the past two decades. While many of these facts are known to the general public, their order and cause are often obscure or confused. So please bear with me as I recount the events in their proper order, as I remember them.
I will start all the way back in 1948 – three years after the destruction of European Jewry, the State of Israel was formed – within two years Sephardic Jewry having been expelled from all the Arab lands fled to the newborn state and joined their Ashkenazi brethren.
Jump ahead 72 years…
In January 2020 the Iranians announced they had decided for “defensive purposes” to build a nuclear arsenal. The US responded it was “shocked” by this development and quickly instituted “robust” new sanctions, but said it would not instigate any hostilities. Following this announcement, the final Israeli government instituted “The Month of Defense” – wherein all citizens were told to prepare for war with Iran. Riots broke out against Jews in Europe and even in North America. Two weeks after the Israeli declaration – the US announced it would not support any Israeli “aggression” against Iran saying it feared this would lead to nuclear war in the region.
It was at this point I went to the Prime Minister. For many years I had been toying with the idea of a lunar colony. My background in environmental physics gave me the perfect training for this experiment. Its true that my Noble Prize in physics was won for discoveries in Isotopic Negativity, what many consider an unrelated field. But any post-doctoral physics student can tell you that the underlying principles of the two disciplines are quite the same. In other words, the original idea was mine and not the Prime Minister’s, but for political reasons it was believed it had a better chance of success if he would propose it and not I.
In February 2021, I was appointed Director of the Jewish Lunar Colony Project. By the way, the space elevator was not my idea but rather that of Yakob Farche, a Czech engineer of Jewish extraction, who approached me shortly after the Prime Minister publicly designated me with the task of designing the plan for the colony.
In July 2022 the UN passed a resolution declaring that for “for the Jews’ own safety” it has been decided to evacuate them to the moon where they would be granted rights to colonize, with the understanding that the world’s lien to the moon would “not be harmed or diminished”. The same resolution removed all Jewish citizenship rights on Earth. Of course, the far Right “Earth Homeland Party” lead by Hezy Ben Arroche fought the plan arguing that Jews had a right to live on Earth just like all other human beings. But the Prime Minister eloquently explained that the Jewish people “had to be practical and not just ideological”. While no referendum was formally held on the matter – rigorous polling showed a consistent majority of Jews in favor of the project.
The UN said it would only back the plan if World Jewry itself would fundthe move. Since Jews could no longer legally live on earth this was accomplished much more easily than was originally imagined. One trilliondollars were raised and the plan was set in motion.
After all the Jews completed evacuation of the Land of Israel in 2015 – the UN passed a resolution formally recognizing the Arab State of Palestine. Unfortunately for the UN, the Palestinians themselves rejected the move. They insisted that the Jews had “ravaged the land of all its natural resources” and that without massive funding, the new state would collapse. A $500 billion world investment plan was quickly instituted to prop up the foundling state – but the subsequent civil was over control of the funds destroyed most of the population and with no prospects for self-support the remaining survivors immigrated.
With the collapse of the State of Palestine, Iran declared it rights to the region claiming that Palestine had always been “a natural extension of Persian autonomy”. The Europeans said this was preposterous and noted that the former State of Israel had once held observer status in the EU and that the land was actually closer to Europe than Iran. What seemed to be a squabble over a small piece of property quickly escalated into hostilities, resulting in the First Nuclear War. While this was limited in scope and only resulted in the loss of only 4 million lives, the lessons of its destructiveness were unfortunately not learned and by the Third Nuclear War most of the planet’s populace had been wiped out and most of the Earth is now uninhabitable.
During this time the Moon Colony flourished. The first dome held up remarkably well and within two years it was decided to expand the dome and institute the lunar landscaping project. Eight years ago I was approached by a young astro-physicist by the name of Aaron Belzberg originally from Bnei Brak. He suggested an incredible idea whereby using a process of reverse ionization of the colony’s oxygen we could create an artificial atmosphere that would remove the need for the dome and make the moon inhabitable. That is how today we have a living moon with 500 million trees, ten lakes and 15 million inhabitants.
All this I recount in order to properly put into context the latest “development”. As most of you have no doubt heard by now, yesterday the UN assembly unanimously passed a resolution accusing the Jews of having “stolen the moon”. The resolution states that if we do not relinquish full rights the world community will be left with no choice but to attack.
While there are several influential Jewish politicians and scientists who claim we can colonize Jupiter – I do not believe this is feasible at this time. Even if we were successful, where would it end? Would we be forced to colonize another solar system, another galaxy, another universe? If we do not make a stand here, where will we ever make a stand?
Don’t the Jews deserve a place to live just like everyone else?
Recent Comments