Posted tagged ‘Jews’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

How Serious Is Sweden’s Fight against Islamic Terrorism and Extremism?

July 17, 2016

How Serious Is Sweden’s Fight against Islamic Terrorism and Extremism? Gatestone Institute, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, July 17, 2016

♦ Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

♦ Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? As usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

♦ “As soon as these people… say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.” — Inspector Leif Fransson, Swedish border police.

♦ Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

Like all other European countries, Sweden is trying to fight against jihadists and terrorists, but it often seems as if the key players in Sweden have no understanding of what the threats are or how to deal with them.

In 2014, for instance, the Swedish government decided to set up a post called the “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism.” But instead of appointing an expert as the national coordinator, the government appointed the former party leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin. Apart from Sahlin having a high school degree, she is mostly known for a corruption scandal. As a party leader of the Social Democrats, she lost the 2010 election, and as a minister in several Socialist governments, she has not managed to distinguish herself in any significant way. Göran Persson, who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006, described Mona Sahlin this way:

“People believe she has a greater political capacity than she has. What comes across her lips is not so remarkable. Her strength is not thinking, but to convey messages.”

With such a background, it was no surprise that she was ineffective as National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism. But the fact that she used her high government agency to help her friends came as a shock to the Swedish public. Sahlin had hired her former bodyguard for a position at her agency and signed a false certificate that he earned $14,000 dollars monthly, so that he could receive financing to purchase a $1.2-million-dollar home.

Sahlin also gave the man’s relative an internship, even though the application had been declined. Before Sahlin resigned in May 2016, she said, “I help many of my friends.”

Despite the fact that Sweden has a Ministry of Justice responsible for issues that would seem far more related to violent extremism, Sweden has, for some reason, placed the agency to combat violent extremism under the Ministry of Culture.

While the U.S sees the fight against Islamic extremism as a security issue, Sweden evidently believes that combating violent extremism should be placed in a ministry responsible for issues such as media, democracy, human rights and national minorities. With such a delegation of responsibility, the government seems either to be trying to hamper efforts to combat violent extremism, or it does not understand the nature of the threat.

The lack of understanding of violent extremism, combined with politicizing the problem, has been evident, for instance, in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city. After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the city councilor responsible for safety and security in Malmö, Andreas Schönström, said that European right-wing extremism is a bigger threat than violent Islamism. And on June 5, 2016, Jonas Hult, Malmö’s security manager, wrote: “The right-wing forces in Malmö are the biggest threat.”

With such statements, one would think that perhaps Malmö is a city filled with neo-Nazi gangs. Not so. Malmö is a city that usually ends up in the news because of Islamic anti-Semitism or extremist activists working to destroy Israel. There have been no reports of any neo-Nazi movements in Malmö in the recent past.

When supporters of Pegida (an anti-Islamic migration political movement in Europe) came to Malmö, they had to be protected by the police due to thousands of extremist activists and Muslims protesting the presence of Pegida. Of Malmö’s residents, 43.2% were either born abroad or their parents were.

Further, the Social Democrat politicians have held local municipal power in Malmö since 1919. To say that Malmö is somehow a place where right-wing extremism is a threat is simply not based on facts. Instead of seriously combating violent extremism, many in Sweden have chosen — possibly imagining it easier — to politicize the problem.

Sweden also has not yet reached the point where the authorities distance themselves from violent extremism. The association Kontrakultur (a cultural and social association in Malmö), receives about $37,000 annually from the municipal cultural committee of Malmö. On its website, Kontrakultur writes that it cooperates with an organization called Förbundet Allt åt alla (“The Association Everything for Everyone”). This organization, in turn, according to the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism, consists of violent extremist activists.

The idea that municipal funds should in no way go to organizations that cooperate with violent extremists is something not yet rooted in Sweden. In June 2016, for example, a 46-year-old Islamic State jihadi arrived in Malmö. He was taken into custody by the police for speedy deportation. But when he applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency took over the matter to examine his asylum application, and ordered the deportation stopped. Inspector Leif Fransson of the border police described the situation:

“As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.”

In August 2015, the Swedish government submitted a document to Parliament outlining the Swedish strategy against terrorism. Among other things, the document stated:

“It is important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism and terrorism.”

Under the headline “Gender Perspective” in a committee directive from the Swedish government on the mission of the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism you can observe:

“The violent extremist environments consist mainly of men, and in the extremist movements there are individuals who oppose gender equality and women’s rights. It is therefore important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism, and that norms that interact and contribute to the emergence of violent environments are effectively counteracted.”

Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? But as usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

914Mona Sahlin, who was Sweden’s “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism,” until she resigned in May amid corruption allegations, is shown posing with Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2010. The Swedish government’s directives to her agency stressed that it is “important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism.” (Image source: Social Democratic Party)

There is no evidence that “gender perspective” is relevant or useful in the fight against extremism and terrorism, yet we see that the Swedish government, in several documents related to terrorism and extremism, evidently believes that “gender perspective” is what should be used in the fight against those threats. This gives just some idea of how strenuously Sweden wants to disregard the problem, or even ask experts for help.

One might argue that this is because Sweden has never been exposed to Islamic terrorism or that extremism is not something that concerns the nation. Sweden has, however, had experience in facing Islamic terrorism. On December 11, 2010, a jihadist blew himself up in central Stockholm. Taimour Abdulwahab did not manage to hurt anyone, but Sweden got a taste of Islamic terrorism and has every reason to want to defend itself against more of it.

Islamic extremism is, unfortunately, becoming more widespread, especially in Sweden’s major cities. Gothenburg, for example, has been having major problems with it. In November 2015, there were reports that 40% of the 300 Swedish jihadists in Syria and Iraq came from Gothenburg. The only country that has, per capita, more of its citizens as jihadists in Iraq and Syria than Sweden, is Belgium.

As facts accumulate, there is much information indicating that Sweden has huge problems dealing with Islamic extremism and jihadism. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo), in the beginning of 2015, published a press release using the words “historic challenge” to describe the threat from violent Islamism. Already in May 2015 the head of Säpo, Anders Thornberg, expressed doubts that the agency could handle the situation if the recruitment of jihadists in Sweden continued or increased.

Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

This general politicization, combined with the failure to prioritize the fight against terrorism and extremism, is the reason Sweden is, and continues to be, a magnet for extremists and terrorists. Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and that there are feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Jihadists also know that there are large gaps in the Swedish bureaucracy and legislation that can be exploited. These are the policies that have been created by Swedish politicians. One can therefore only question if Sweden seriously wants to fight the threats of terrorism and extremism.

Categories: "Far right hate groups", Gender perspective, Islam and females, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamist deportations, Islamists, Israel, Jews, Multiculturalism, Sweden
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Illinois Seeks Nation’s First Muslim Advisory Council

July 13, 2016

Illinois Seeks Nation’s First Muslim Advisory Council, Truth Revolt, Trey Sanchez, July 12, 2016

Illinois

Legislation currently pending in the state of Illinois would authorize a special Muslim-only advisory council if signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

It would be a permanent 21-member council made up of volunteer members appointed by the governor and House and Senate members to advise the governor and the General Assembly on issues that would impact Muslim-Americans and immigrants. Meetings would be held monthly with two public hearings each year. Members would serve two-year terms and are required to have expertise in business, law, or health care.

The timing of this legislation is a bit curious, as Bruce Cornibe notes at Counter Jihad:

At the end of an especially bloody month of Ramadan, which included the worst terror attack in America since 9/11, some politicians and lawmakers feel the solution is to give Muslim community more of a voice in government.

Not to mention the mixing of religion with official state business.

“This special status for a religious group is surprising in a country that bars an official state religion,” Cornibe states. “Why wouldn’t Illinois require a Christian council? Or how about a Jewish council?”

Cornibe notes that Muslims aren’t the biggest victims of discrimination, and in fact, FBI records show that nearly 60% of crimes against Jews are motivated by anti-Semitism. But that matters little to those screaming “Islamophobia.”

And it’s no surprise to know that those Muslim activists and organizations, like CAIR, who are supporting the bill have known associations with terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Just as CAIR and other Brotherhood-linked activist groups weaken the functioning of our government, so too would the Muslim-American Advisory Council in Illinois,” Cornibe writes. “There are no councils to represent the interests of other faiths in Illinois, and the likely leaders of this council are from the same band urging the Federal government towards censorship of criticism.”

Categories: CAIR, Christians, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Jews
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

The Arabs’ Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel ( a must read )

July 11, 2016

The Arabs’ Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel

by Fred Maroun

July 10, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: The Arabs’ Historic Mistakes in Their Interactions with Israel

A top notch peace !

  • We Arabs managed our relationship with Israel atrociously, but the worst of all is the ongoing situation of the Palestinians. Our worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947.
  • Perhaps one should not launch wars if one is not prepared for the results of possibly losing them.
  • The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are.
  • Jordan integrated some refugees, but not all. We could have proven that we Arabs are a great and noble people, but instead we showed the world, as we continue to do, that our hatred towards each other and towards Jews is far greater than any concept of purported Arab solidarity.

This is part one of a two-part series. The second part will examine what we Arabs can do differently today.

In the current state of the relationship between the Arab world and Israel, we see a patchwork of hostility, tense peace, limited cooperation, calm, and violence. We Arabs managed our relationship with Israel atrociously, but the worst of all is the ongoing situation of the Palestinians.

The Original Mistake

Our first mistake lasted centuries, and occurred well before Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948. It consisted of not recognizing Jews as equals.

As documented by a leading American scholar of Jewish history in the Muslim world, Mark R. Cohen, during that era, “Jews shared with other non-Muslims the status of dhimmis [non-Muslims who have to pay protection money and follow separate debasing laws to be tolerated in Muslim-controlled areas] … New houses of worship were not to be built and old ones could not be repaired. They were to act humbly in the presence of Muslims. In their liturgical practice they had to honor the preeminence of Islam. They were further required to differentiate themselves from Muslims by their clothing and by eschewing symbols of honor. Other restrictions excluded them from positions of authority in Muslim government”.

On March 1, 1944, while the Nazis were massacring six million Jews, and well before Israel declared independence, Haj Amin al-Husseini, then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, declared on Radio Berlin, “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”

If we had not made this mistake, we might have benefited in two ways.

Jews would likely have remained in the Muslim Middle East in greater numbers, and they would have advanced the Middle Eastern civilization rather than the civilizations of the places to which they fled, most notably Europe and later the United States.

Secondly, if Jews felt secure and accepted in the Middle East among Arabs, they may not have felt the need to create an independent state, which would have saved us from our subsequent mistakes.

The Worst Mistake

Our second and worst mistake was in not accepting the United Nations partition plan of 1947. UN resolution 181 provided the legal basis for a Jewish state and an Arab state sharing what used to be British-controlled Mandatory Palestine.

As reported by the BBC, that resolution provided for:

“A Jewish State covering 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) with a population of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs; An Arab State covering 43.53% of Mandatory Palestine (excluding Jerusalem), with 807,000 Arab inhabitants and 10,000 Jewish inhabitants; An international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem, where the population was 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs.”

Although the land allocated to the Jewish state was slightly larger than the land allocated to the Arab state, much of the Jewish part was total desert, the Negev and Arava, with the fertile land allocated to the Arabs. The plan was also to the Arabs’ advantage for two other reasons:

  • The Jewish state had only a bare majority of Jews, which would have given the Arabs almost as much influence as the Jews in running the Jewish state, but the Arab state was almost purely Arab, providing no political advantage to Jews within it.
  • Each proposed state consisted of three more-or-less disconnected pieces, resulting in strong geographic interdependence between the two states. If the two states were on friendly terms, they would likely have worked in many ways as a single federation. In that federation, Arabs would have had a strong majority.

Instead of accepting that gift of a plan when we still could, we Arabs decided that we could not accept a Jewish state, period. In May 1948, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition: that, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” We initiated a war intended to eradicate the new state in its infancy, but we lost, and the result of our mistake was a much stronger Jewish state:

  • The Jewish majority of the Jewish state grew dramatically due to the exchange of populations that occurred, with many Arabs fleeing the war in Israel and many Jews fleeing a hostile Arab world to join the new state.
  • The Jews acquired additional land during the war we launched, resulting in armistice lines (today called the green lines or pre-1967 lines), which gave Israel a portion of the land previously allocated to the Arab state. The Jewish state also acquired much better contiguity, while the Arab portions became divided into two parts (Gaza and the West Bank) separated by almost 50 kilometers.

Perhaps one should not launch wars if one is not prepared for the results of possibly losing them.

In May 1948, Azzam Pasha (right), the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, regarding the proposed new Jewish part of the partition: that, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

More Wars and More Mistakes

After the War of Independence (the name that the Jews give to the war of 1947/1948), Israel was for all practical purposes confined to the land within the green lines. Israel had no authority or claim over Gaza and the West Bank. We Arabs had two options if we had chosen to make peace with Israel at that time:

  • We could have incorporated Gaza into Egypt, and the West Bank into Jordan, providing the Palestinians with citizenship in one of two relatively strong Arab countries, both numerically and geographically stronger than Israel.
  • We could have created a new state in Gaza and the West Bank.

Instead, we chose to continue the hostilities with Israel. In the spring of 1967, we formed a coalition to attack Israel. On May 20, 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad stated, “The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” On May 27, 1967, Egypt’s President Abdul Nasser declared, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”. In June, it took Israel only six days to defeat us and humiliate us in front of the world. In that war, we lost much more land, including Gaza and the West Bank.

After the war of 1967 (which Jews call the Six-Day War), Israel offered us land for peace, thereby offering us a chance to recover from the mistake of the Six-Day War. We responded with the Khartoum Resolutions, stating, “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel”.

Not having learned from 1967, we formed yet another coalition in October 1973 and tried again to destroy Israel. We achieved some gains, but then the tide turned and we lost again. After this third humiliating defeat, our coalition against Israel broke up, and Egypt and Jordan even decided to make peace with Israel.

The rest of us remained stubbornly opposed to Israel’s very existence, even Syria which, like Egypt and Jordan, had lost land to Israel during the Six-Day War. Today Israel still holds that territory, and there is no real prospect for that land ever going back to Syria; Israel’s Prime Minister recently declared that, “Israel will never leave the Golan Heights”.

The Tragedy of the Palestinians

The most reprehensible and the most tragic of our mistakes is the way that we Arabs have treated Palestinians since Israel’s declaration of independence.

The Jews of Israel welcomed Jewish refugees from Arab and other Muslim lands into the Israeli fold, regardless of the cost or the difficulty in integrating people with very different backgrounds. Israel eagerly integrated refugees from far-away lands, including Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Brazil, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia. By doing so, they demonstrated the powerful bond that binds Jews to each other. At the same time, we had the opportunity similarly to show the bond that binds Arabs together, but instead of welcoming Arab refugees from the 1947/48 war, we confined them to camps with severe restrictions on their daily lives.

In Lebanon, as reported by Amnesty International, “Palestinians continue to suffer discrimination and marginalization in the labor market which contribute to high levels of unemployment, low wages and poor working conditions. While the Lebanese authorities recently lifted a ban on 50 of the 70 jobs restricted to them, Palestinians continue to face obstacles in actually finding employment in them. The lack of adequate employment prospects leads a high drop-out rate for Palestinian schoolchildren who also have limited access to public secondary education. The resultant poverty is exacerbated by restrictions placed on their access to social services”.

Yet, Lebanon and Syria could not integrate refugees that previously lived a few kilometers away from the country’s borders and who shared with the country’s people almost identical cultures, languages, and religions. Jordan integrated some refugees but not all. We could have proven that we Arabs are a great and noble people, but instead we showed the world, as we continue to do, that our hatred towards each other and towards Jews is far greater than any concept of purported Arab solidarity. Shamefully to us, seven decades after the Palestinian refugees fled Israel, their descendants are still considered refugees.

The worst part of the way we have treated Palestinian refugees is that even within the West Bank and Gaza, there remains to this day a distinction between Palestinian refugees and native Palestinians. In those lands, according to the year 2010 numbers provided by Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet at McGill University, 37% of Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza live in camps! Gaza has eight Palestinian refugee camps, and the West bank has nineteen. The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are. Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas claims a state on those lands, but we can hardly expect him to be taken seriously when he leaves the Palestinian refugees under his authority in camps and cannot even integrate them with other Palestinians. The ridiculousness of the situation is rivaled only by its callousness.

Where We Are Now

Because of our own mistakes, our relationship with Israel today is a failure. The only strength in our economies is oil, a perishable resource and, with fracking, diminishing in value. We have not done nearly enough to prepare for the future when we will need inventiveness and productivity. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, “Although Arab governments have long recognized the need to shift away from an excessive dependence on hydrocarbons, they have had little success in doing so. … Even the United Arab Emirates’ economy, one of the most diversified in the Gulf, is highly dependent on oil exports”.

Business Insider rated Israel in 2015 as the world’s third most innovative country. Countries from all over the world take advantage of Israel’s creativity, including countries as remote and as advanced as Japan. Yet we snub Israel, an innovation powerhouse that happens to be at our borders.

We also fail to take advantage of Israel’s military genius to help us fight new and devastating enemies such as ISIS.

Worst of all, one of our own people, the Palestinians, are dispersed — divided, disillusioned, and utterly incapable of reviving the national project that we kidnapped from under their feet in 1948 and that we have since disfigured beyond recognition.

To say that we must change our approach towards Israel is an understatement. There are fundamental changes that we ourselves must make, and we must find the courage and moral fortitude to make them.

The Jews are not keeping the Arabs in camps, we are.

Fred Maroun, a left-leaning Arab based in Canada, has authored op-eds for New Canadian Media, among other outlets. From 1961-1984, he lived in Lebanon.

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

Comments: Be the first to comment

Humor? | Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need.

June 28, 2016

Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need. Dan Miller’s Blog, June 28, 2016

(I marked the post as “Humor?” but it comes very close to reflecting Obama’s world view. The opinions implicit in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

This is a guest post by Loretta Lynchmob, Supreme Attorney of Imam Obama’s Loving America. Her younger sister is among the singers in the following inspirational video, as is Hillary Clinton. Here are her, er, inspiring words.

I also participated in this dazzling performance on my way to support an abortion clinic:

Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to sing What the World Needs Now is Love before or after making my remarks following the White supremacist hate-group’s attack in Orlando, Florida during which almost two hundred innocent  homosexuals and lesbians were killed or wounded. That sad incident, of course, had nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with the wonderful Religion of Peace and Tolerance. Rather than listen to the haters who claim that it was on account of our their beautiful Islam, we must give all Muslims at home and abroad love, not hate.

This brings me to the major point of this article: Since everyone — including Muslim “terror” groups — wants the same loving sort of life that all good Americans want, we must give them what they want and need to end their totally justified “depredations.” To do so is Imam Obama’s Loving American way and we cannot do otherwise; that would not be who we are and would put us on the wrong side of hisherstory.

What do immigrants and the so-called terror groups want and what can we give them?

“Terror” groups, like the immigrants fleeing the poverty and repression they suffer in much of Latin America, want to have the same prosperity and freedom that we have in Imam Obama’s already-great America; America was never greater than under the heel of Obama. The Latin American immigrants want it here, the “terror groups” want it in the countries we wrongfully took from them to give to radical firebrands such as President al-Sisi in Egypt and Prime Minister Netanyahu in Occupied Palestine. They will have the prosperity and freedom they want and deserve only when we give them love, not hate. Trump offers hate, we offer love. Surely, ours is not only the better way, it is the only way.

Aside from our abiding, non-judgmental love, what can we give them? They are poor so we need to give them money and the stuff that money can buy. Based on our outpourings of love, they will not use the money to purchase automatic weapons and other types of assault rifles to use against innocents or even against us. Obama’s wonderful peace deal with Iran is a case in point: due to His wisdom in returning to Iran economic power and money of which she had been unjustly deprived, Iran has joined the world community as a peaceful power, opposed to “terrorism,” and will never have nuclear bombs. Only those in America who cling hatefully to their guns and their religion of hate see the world differently and use weapons of war on innocents.

We can, and must, also help them to learn more about democracy. We encouraged democracy when the Egyptian masses overthrew “their” dictator Mubarak and replaced him with their own peace-loving, tolerant President Morsi. That’s the way true democracy works. Then, sadly, a few thousand Egyptian enemies of the brave and peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood conducted a coup, led by an Egyptian general, and replaced President Morsi with a fascist dictator named al-Sisi. The people of Egypt have not forgotten about how democracy should work, and given a chance will again rebel against fascist al-Sisi and depose him in favor of another brave, peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood advocate. We must do everything we can to help them in their loving quest for true freedom and true democracy.

Much of Occupied Palestine is rich; that’s where the Jews live and parade with their filthy feet in what they call “Temple Mount.”

What do the Jews give their Palestinian brothers — who want only their love and sustenance? When they provide water, they poison it. They often cut off electricity to Gaza, with no better excuse than that their poverty-stricken supplicants there can’t pay for it! Is money all that matters? Is gross human suffering of no consequence?

We can, and must, do everything possible to send the Jews festering in Occupied Palestine back to wherever they came from. It’s only just and fair! The blessed United Nations is one hundred percent with us on this; too long have we vetoed Security Council resolutions even modestly adverse to “Israel.” Were we to sponsor a decree by the UN Security Council to rid Occupied Palestine of its Jews, it would pass without veto. If we believe in love — not the hate spewed by “Israel” — that’s precisely what we must do.

Hillary Clinton is indisputably the best-qualified person to take up Obama’s great work when He, sadly, must leave office next January. There is much left to be done, and only She can and will do it. Even the proprietor of this vile right-wing hate blog has said so. Trump, on the other hand, would destroy everything that Obama has done and thereby destroy America as we know and love her. A vote for Hillary is a vote for honesty, candor and, most important, love. A vote for he-of-the-orange hair is a vote for dishonesty, lies and hate.

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

Editor’s comments

Ms. Lynchmob does a good job of articulating the differences between Trump and the Obama-Clinton cabal and their visions for America as seen by the left. How many in Obama’s America see things as she does?

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel and human rights, Jews, Love sweet love, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Palestinians, Sisi, Temple Mount, U.S. politics, United Nations, Zionists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Humor |Phrases about Islamist Terrorism that won’t Offend Anyone Important

June 15, 2016

Phrases about Islamist Terrorism that won’t Offend Anyone Important, Dan Miller’s Blog, June 15, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Obama, His Department of Homeland Security, CAIR and His many other collaborators colleagues have tried really hard not to offend Islamists when talking about Islamist terror. Ditto the lamebrain mainstream media. They need more variety, so here are just a few politically correct suggestions for appropriate phrases guaranteed not to offend anyone important.

Church violence — for use when Islamists burn or otherwise attack a church.

Synagogue violence — as above, but when they burn or otherwise attack a synagogue.

Christian violence – broader than church violence, but otherwise about the same.

Jewish violence — Broader than synagogue violence, but otherwise about the same.

Homosexual violence — for use when Islamists kill homosexuals.

Gun violence — for use when Muslims use guns to attack homosexuals, Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims.

Knife violence — same as for gun violence, except it applies only when knives are used.

Violent rhetoric — applies only to whatever Donald Trump says.

Hate speech — applies to anything linking the Quran, the Hadith, Sharia Law, other Islamic texts, CAIR or other Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups to violence.

Great speech! –applies to anything about Islamism said by Obama,  Hillary or a CAIR spokesperson.

Peaceful Muslims — applies to all Muslims who haven’t yet behaved violently toward non-Muslims personally.

Racist incitement — Any derogatory remarks about Islamists, even though Islam is not a race.

Racism — see Racist incitement.

Men of God — Imams.

Not Islamic — applies to any violent, criminal or otherwise antisocial act committed by a Muslim.

That’s just a sample. Any sane person could suggest more.

Now, for your further entertainment, here’s a beautiful vocal rendition by the Muslim Brotherhood Trio:

Categories: CAIR, Christians, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hate speech, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America, Jews, Media, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Political correctness, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

By any other name

June 14, 2016

By any other name, Israel Hayom, Annika Hernroth-Rothstein, June 14, 2016

Obama refuses to acknowledge the threat (of Islamic terrorism — DM), as he has for the past eight years, and the world is a more dangerous place because of it. If it wasn’t quite as dangerous and frightening, Obama’s dance around reality and beautiful semantic avoidance game would be parodic or even hilarious. Rather than calling a spade a spade, Obama invents tools that never were, and a jihadi mass killing becomes “attitudes” and gun control and a stern speech to his disciples on embracing the LGBT community.

Hopefully, the next president will see that the attacks on Sarona and Pulse are branches of the same tree and hatred from the same source and that the war is best fought together with Israel, rather than against it.

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

Just a few weeks ago, I sat on a beach in Tel Aviv and read the morning paper as the waves rolled in over my feet, enthralled enough by the intensity of the message that I didn’t even notice the gradual dampening of the pages. The particular article that had caught my eye that day was on the Israeli Left’s theory that the Israeli government uses so-called “pinkwashing,” superficially pandering to the gay community to distract the world from the “occupation” and the reality of its “oppression” of minorities, including the LGBT community. The message of the piece was that yes, we have a pride parade and yes, Tel Aviv may be a choice destination for gay tourism, but shame on us for not doing better and shame on Israel for not being everything the author wanted it to be.

As with many articles, that one entered and left my consciousness, but something must have stuck because it popped back up today after I learned about the horrific massacre in Orlando, Florida. The attack took place at Pulse, a popular gay nightclub, and the shooter has been identified as Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American citizen who, 20 minutes before the shooting, called 911 and declared his allegiance to Islamic State. Mateen had been under surveillance by the FBI in 2013 for alleged ties to American suicide bomber Moner Mohammad Abusalha, and his father runs an anti-American web TV show in which he expresses pro-Taliban sentiments and makes political speeches with no small amount of anti-Western sentiment.

Given all that, this should be an open and shut case, right? It would be a given that President Barack Obama call this a jihadi terrorist attack, that he would mention Islamic terrorism and vow to fight it, after what was the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

But that didn’t happen.

Obama did call it terror, but engaged in an intricate and well-rehearsed dance to avoid mentioning what type of terror or from where it came. Instead, he gave a speech about how the American people need “strength and courage to change its attitude toward the gay community,” as if the general public’s attitude toward the LGBT community is what shot up that gay club and murdered 49 people.

In short, Obama would rather point the finger of blame at his entire country than at one single Muslim at any given time.

It was after seeing the president’s speech that the pinkwashing article came back to my mind because it represented the same moronic panic that defines the Left and its inability to correctly identify a culprit. I have traveled the world, and Tel Aviv is one of the top three most gay-friendly cities I have been to. And Israel, a country solidly based on religion and tradition, manages to balance this alongside a social agenda that is sometimes too progressive for my conservative tastes. The attempt to call the Tel Aviv pride festival “pinkwashing” or to call Israeli society an oppressive or homophobic one, having oh-so-many not so distant neighbors to compare to, is embarrassing bordering on the offensive. Rather than focusing on the actual threat, they choose to invent one that doesn’t force them to confront their worldview or the political theory that not only is their bread and butter but their identity and raison d’etre.

Obama refuses to acknowledge the threat, as he has for the past eight years, and the world is a more dangerous place because of it. If it wasn’t quite as dangerous and frightening, Obama’s dance around reality and beautiful semantic avoidance game would be parodic or even hilarious. Rather than calling a spade a spade, Obama invents tools that never were, and a jihadi mass killing becomes “attitudes” and gun control and a stern speech to his disciples on embracing the LGBT community.

There’s a hugely important difference between Israel and the U.S., despite both countries having a Left that invents problems rather than solving the ones at hand. In Israel, the Left yells and blames, but the government still speaks honestly and governs in accordance with reality, all too familiar with the threats of terror and murderers. In America, the yelling Left has been at the helm for the past eight years and the progressive logic has been put into law, and whoever gets passed the baton in January has their work cut out for them just reversing the damage of a president intent on governing according to his worldview rather than reality.

Hopefully, the next president will see that the attacks on Sarona and Pulse are branches of the same tree and hatred from the same source and that the war is best fought together with Israel, rather than against it.

Many lives have been lost this week, or rather, they have been taken, and out of respect for the dead we need to call the culprits by name and not make up stories to save face or protect our hollow fantasies. Reality is rarely pretty, but the alternative is even worse, and we have neither time nor blood to spare for another round of make-believe.

Categories: Homosexuals, Jews, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Tel Aviv massacre
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Washington Post: Muslims Killing Jews Not Like the Holocaust, Syrian Refugees Like the Holocaust

June 10, 2016

Washington Post: Muslims Killing Jews Not Like the Holocaust, Syrian Refugees Like the Holocaust, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 10, 2016

godblesshitler_1

When Muslims kill Jews as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing while cursing them as “apes and pigs”, it’s not like the Holocaust. But when Syrian Muslims, at least 13% of whom support ISIS, want to invade America… it’s exactly like the Holocaust.

That’s the shameless abuse of history perpetrated by Ishaan Tharoor at the Washington Post who helped popularize that disgusting, “Muslim Migrants = Holocaust Survivors” meme. As documented by James Kirchick. (There are numerous problems with Kirchick’s piece, but the points he makes about Tharoor are quite valid.)

Ishaan Tharoor, a writer for the Post’s WorldViews blog, concluded, “Today’s three-year-old Syrian orphan, it seems, is 1939’s German Jewish child.” (In September, Tharoor had made the same point about European reactions to the crisis, in a post entitled, “Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930’s anti-Semitism.”…

Tharoor’s sympathetic appropriation of the Jewish refugee experience to shame those who question Western governmental capacity to absorb millions of Syrians is ironic given the sedulous efforts he has made in lecturing others—mainly Jews and Israelis—who dare mention the history of Jewish suffering as a means of contextualizing its present-day manifestations. A survey of his work shows that Tharoor uses Holocaust allegories when they’re suitable to his political goals and dismisses them as cheap propaganda whenever they’re employed to make points with which he doesn’t agree…

Muslims are the new Jews has become an Islamic form of political replacement theology. So when Muslims kill Jews, it’s nothing like the Holocaust. Just ask Tharoor.

Last year, when two Palestinians armed with meat cleavers hacked five Jews to death in West Jerusalem, Tharoor took to his keypad to scold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for stating that the murders were the result of a “blood libel” against Jews. Such language was “explosive,” Tharoor claimed, while neglecting to describe, never mind attach adjectives to, the hair-raising anti-Semitic incitement emitted on a daily basis from official organs of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas….

In a May post titled “7 things that are not like the Holocaust,” … Tharoor listed “The actions of Islamists” as being “not like the Holocaust.”

“As leader of a state that emerged directly after the horrors of the Holocaust, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel he has a particular moral right to invoke the evils of the Nazis when inveighing against his present-day enemies,” Tharoor inveighed. “But that doesn’t mean he’s right in making the parallel. Netanyahu raises the specter of Nazism frequently in speeches criticizing Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, the terrorist Islamic State, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, a geopolitical foe.”

As a purely analytical exercise, a cursory sampling of these entities’ anti-Semitic greatest hits—ranging from a “covenant” that calls for the murder of “warmongering Jews” to the actual bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina that killed 85 innocents—merits at least passing contrast to the ideology of Nazism, certainly as much as the dilemma of Syrian refugees.

But the universalization of the Holocaust has meant its appropriation to serve any random cause of the left while at the same time being routinely used against Israel. Thus it’s not fair to compare Muslims killing Jews to Nazis, but it is fair to compare Jews fighting back against Muslim terrorists to Nazis.

And when Muslims collaborated with Nazis to kill Jews… they also weren’t like the Nazis.

He downplayed the Mufti’s fanatical Jew-hatred by enveloping it within a broader narrative of legitimate anti-colonial struggle. “In hindsight, World War II lends itself to a simple, stark binary as a conflict between genocidal fascists and their opponents. But for myriad communities that experienced the invasions of the Germans and Japanese, the war offered something else—the prospect of liberation from other occupying empires.”

To summarize, Muslims can never be like the Nazis. But they can always be considered victims of the Holocaust… even if they’re trying to kill Jews.

Categories: Holocaust, Islamic refugees, Jews, Media
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ frenzied mob screams at Jewish University of California Irvine student

May 26, 2016

‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ frenzied mob screams at Jewish University of California Irvine student

By Pamela Geller on May 26, 2016

Source: ‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ frenzied mob screams at Jewish University of California Irvine student | Pamela Geller

It’s getting to be open season on Jewish students on our nation’s campuses. Why aren’t administrators acting against these neo-Nazis? Because they’re leftists and Muslims — two protected classes.

“‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ angry mob screams at Jewish UC student,” by Hannah Broad, Jerusalem Post, May 22, 2016:

Second-year Eliana Kopley was attempting to enter the showing of the Israeli documentary “Beneath the Helmet” about the IDF when a crowd of protesters physically obstructed her.

An angry anti-Israel mob at the University of California at Irvine chased a Jewish student into a building while chanting anti-Semitic epithets after she tried to attend a campus screening of an Israeli documentary last Wednesday, the Observer reported.

Second-year Eliana Kopley was attempting to enter the showing of the Israeli documentary “Beneath the Helmet” about the IDF when a crowd of protesters physically obstructed her and chased her into an adjacent building.

The angry mob proceeded to pound intimidatingly on the windows and doors while shouting “Long live the Intifada!” and “F**k Israel!”

Kopley called the police, who escorted her safely into the film screening amidst the angry rhetoric of the activists. In spite of arriving safely to the event, Kopley was overwhelmed by the trauma of the incident and became emotional.

In contrast to the Kopley’s response to the irate horde of protesters, the UC Irvine campus group Students for Justice in Palestine lauded the mob’s behavior and labeled their intimidation techniques a success.

Academic centers across the United States have seen an uptick in increasingly vehement anti-Israel sentiment, particularly in California.

In 2015, more than 30 organizations, including Jewish fraternity AEPI, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Zionist Organization of America wrote to University of California regent Bruce D. Varner in July, requesting that substantive measures be taken to combat rising anti-Semitism on UC-affiliated campuses….

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Egyptian Commentator Calls to Establish Death Squads That Will Kill Israelis, Mutilate Their Bodies

May 23, 2016

Egyptian Commentator Calls to Establish Death Squads That Will Kill Israelis, Mutilate Their Bodies, MEMRI-TV via YouTube, May 23, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwTvopIkI8

The blurb beneath the video states,

Egyptian political commentator Nabih Al-Wahsh accused Israel of downing EgyptAir Flight 804, and called for Egyptians and Arabs to kill any Israeli they come across and to mutilate his body. Al-Wahsh, a lawyer, filed a lawsuit with Egyptian courts four years ago in an attempt to abolish the Camp David Accords. Al-Asseema TV presenter tried to stop Al-Wahsh from inciting to violence, but to no avail, as Al-Wahsh called for the establishment of “death squads” that would hunt down Israelis all over the world. The show aired on May 20.

Categories: Antisemitism, Egyptian passenger aircraft down, Israel, Jews
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Inside the Pro-Iran ‘Echo Chamber’

May 16, 2016

Inside the Pro-Iran ‘Echo Chamber’ Washington Free Beacon, , May 16, 2016

ayatollah

A White House-allied group funded a private email listserv that pushed out pro-Iran talking points and anti-Israel conspiracy theories to hundreds of influential policy experts, government officials, and journalists during the Iran nuclear debate.

The contents of the invite-only listserv, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, could give a glimpse inside the “echo chamber” used by White House aide Ben Rhodes and allied lobbying groups to promote the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Members of the list included an Obama White House adviser, senior officials at the State Department, journalists for the New York Times and the Washington Post, and fellows at prominent think tanks.

The email forum, known as “Gulf/2000,” was originally created by Columbia University professor and former Jimmy Carter aide Gary Sick in 1993.

Since 2010, Gulf/2000’s operations have been funded by the Ploughshares Fund, a group that worked closely with the White House to promote the Iran nuclear deal.

In a New York Times article earlier this month, President Obama’s foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes said the Ploughshares Fund was part of the administration’s spin operation to sell the public on the agreement.

“We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else,” Rhodes said. “So we knew the tactics that worked.”

Gulf/2000 is still run out of Columbia University, where it is curated by Sick. Over the last two decades, Sick built the group into the predominant email list for Gulf State policy experts across the ideological spectrum.

The vast majority of posts on the forum are news articles, but occasionally members weigh in with their own comments. Posts are pre-approved by Sick or his assistants, and insiders say the forum is “dominated” by pro-Iran talking points.

One former member, who left Gulf/2000 several years ago because “90 percent of the traffic was either useless or promoting the official lines,” said the comments that were approved for posting seemed to follow an ideological slant.

“Gary [Sick] was the moderator, and the moderator is supposed to moderate,” said the former member. “And I learned after awhile, it was quite obvious, that Gary was filtering and navigating more toward his views of the world on all these issues.”

Sick said he was unable to discuss Gulf/2000 because he was traveling for the next few weeks. He declined to answer questions by email.

Joe Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, did not respond to a request for comment. In a column last week, Cirincione disputed allegations that the Ploughshares Fund took orders from the White House about how to sell the Iran deal.

Gulf/2000 members said the forum posts, which are supposed to focus on Gulf State policy issues, often veer into defenses of the Iranian regime or conspiracy theories about Israel. Another member, speaking on background to theWashington Free Beacon, compared the group to a pro-Iran “info-op”—military jargon for a campaign to influence policy decisions.

“The most significant forum for scholars of Iranian studies to exchange ideas and views was dominated by apologists for the Iranian regime and was dominated by people who would reflexively push back on any argument that the Iranian regime was involved in what we would call ‘malign activities’ or ‘illicit activities,’” said the member, who added that the majority of his colleagues who work on Gulf issues belong to the forum.

The Ploughshares Fund said it finances Gulf/2000 in order to “inform the debate over Iran’s nuclear program in the media and among policymakers by assessing and reporting on events, generating viable solutions and refuting false stories,” according to its annual reports. The foundation has given the email list $75,000 a year since 2010.

Gulf/2000 is linked to a larger messaging effort on the Iran deal that has been reported on by the Free Beacon and other outlets.

In October 2014, the Free Beacon published audio recordings from a since-discontinued strategy meeting between the White House and activist groups lobbying for the nuclear deal. During the session, Rhodes stressed that the agreement was “the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy.”

Last summer, the Free Beacon posted tapes from a private conference call with progressive groups organized by the Ploughshares Fund that discussed how to sell the Iran deal to congressional Democrats.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are calling on Rhodes to testify about his comments to the Times, which seemed to suggest the administration misled the public and created an “echo chamber” in order to get the deal through.

Members of Gulf/2000 include activists and writers who worked closely with the Obama administration on Iran issues. One is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council, a lobbying group working to repeal Iran sanctions. Another is Al-Monitor reporter Laura Rozen, who a White House aide described as her “RSS feed” on Iran in the Timesarticle. Cirincione is also on the list.

Other members have included Puneet Talwar, a senior State Department official and former advisor to Joe Biden in the Senate and White House; John Limbert, Obama’s former deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran; and Tamara Cofman Wittes, Obama’s former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

Many of the email list’s regular contributors are bloggers and academics: Jim Lobe and Marsha Cohen, writers for the anti-Israel website LobeLog; Flynt and Hillary Leverett, authors of the book “Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran”; Truthout writer Gareth Porter; and Cyrus Safdari, a commentator at Iran Review. Gulf/2000 also includes a number of current and former Iranian scholars who work at state-controlled universities or think tanks.

The Free Beacon reviewed hundreds of posts sent to the listserv between 2010 and 2015. Many contain theories about the “Israel Lobby’s” destructive influence over U.S. foreign policy and politicians, defenses of the Iranian government, and comments downplaying news stories that cast the regime in a negative light.

Although some Gulf/2000 members are strong critics of the Iranian government, particularly on human rights, many of the most active posters are vocal defenders of the regime.

“Perhaps above all, one of the greatest benefits of this [Iran] deal has been to put some limits, at least for the time being, on the Israeli Lobby and their rightwing supporters in the Congress,” wrote Farhang Jahanpour, a former dean at a state-run Iranian university, in 2013.

Other posts talked about the necessity of “breaking the power of the domestic Israel lobby” and the “neo-con cabal” that were allegedly the main threats to the Iran deal.

“The Neo-Cons have convinced themselves that no costs of human life outweigh the moral benefits they see of ridding Israel of any perceived military threat by pre-active lethal military force,” wrote David Long in January 2013.

The forum is also littered with conspiracy theories about the Israeli government and foreign affairs. In one post, retired journalist Richard Sale claimed the CIA told him that pro-Israel Christian groups were “secretly funded by Mossad.” In another, Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich speculated that the Iranian-backed bombing of the 1994 AMIA Jewish community center was actually a false flag operation by the Argentine government to cover up its complicity with the Nazis.

Although Gulf/2000 is ostensibly a forum to discuss Gulf policy issues, the listserv’s fixation with “neocons” and the “Israel lobby” is not new. In 2003, a Lebanese columnist named Jihad Al Khazen published a series of lengthy posts on Gulf/2000 that purported to tell the “Biographies of the Neo-Cons.” His subjects included Bill Kristol, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, and Robert Kagan.

At the time, members also debated the correlation between “neo-cons” and Jews.

“It is certainly true that not every supporter of the [Iraq] war is Jewish, but it is definitely true that every supporter of the war with Iraq is a supporter of the most extreme Israeli right-wing. The coincidence is hard to ignore,” noted William Beeman.

Occasionally a contributor would push back on the forum’s general consensus.

“I am puzzled by the consistent tone of dismissal of any allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Iran by members of this list,” wrote one poster in 2003. “These charges are lumped together as either the baseless allegations of the US government, or worse, the product of a secret Jewish-neocon plot to discredit an Iran which would never, ever participate in terrorism.”

But a former forum member said Sick would often cut off conversations as “off-topic” when commenters tried to defend Israel against charges.

“There were clearly cases where there were things that were said about Israel, or written, posted about Israel, that were false, defamatory, absurd,” said the former member.

On March 5, 2014, the day the Israeli military announced it had intercepted an Iranian shipment of advanced rockets to Gaza, the news was greeted with typical suspicion in the forum.

“Call me a cynic, but it does seem like amazingly fortuitous timing: just when the IAEA have resisted Israel’s call to publish the claims (probably) Israel leaked, and while Bibi is tub-thumping to AIPAC in Washington ,” wrote James Spencer, a blogger for LobeLog.

“[S]omething did not jibe with this story. It is just a little bit too convenient,” agreed another poster.

“I can’t take that narrative at face value,” added Thomas Lippman, former Middle East bureau chief of the Washington Post.

“As James Spencer and Walter Posch noted the timing is suspicious, occurring as the AIPAC conference convened with Netanyahu in Washington,” wrote Charles Smith, a professor at the University of Arizona.

When the Iranian government weighed in on the arms seizure the day after the story broke, its response was similar.

“An Iranian ship carrying arms for Gaza. Captured just in time for annual AIPAC anti Iran campaign. Amazing Coincidence! Or same failed lies,” wrote Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Twitter.

Another common refrain in posts is that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

“Like other counter-factual mythologies (President Obama’s birthplace, the identity of the Kennedy assassin, Jimmy Hoffa’s killer), this one seemingly will never die–at least as long as the neo-cons are alive to fan the last of its faint sparks,” wrote William O. Beeman, an anthropology professor at the University of Minnesota.

An official at an Iranian university, whose name was withheld, claimed the notion that Iran was seeking a bomb was driven by “Iranophobia.”

“Iran repeatedly has said that it doesn’t pursue the way of reaching to Atomic bomb,” said the poster. “What makes the US doesn’t believe this is exactly rooted to what Mr. Aboutalebi described it in his interview as Iranophobia.”

Posts also defend Iran against allegations of human rights violations by suggesting the claims are intended to undermine moderates or denying the charges altogether.

“[A]s the nuclear issue has become effectively – for now – insulated due to the support of Khamenei, critics are seeking to undermine Rouhani through other issues,” wrote Parsi in March 2014. “Human rights – due to the impact it has on Rouhani’s external image and the impact that can have on negotiations – appears to be one such issue.”

Other commenters were less subtle than Parsi.

“The Leveretts said it best: Ahmadinejad won those elections; get over it already,” argued blogger Safdari in December 2013.

One former member expressed concern that the influential listserv was being used to whitewash the Iranian government.

“If the Iranian regime wanted to push back on any assertion against it … it could not do a better job itself than the American academics and pundits who do it on Gulf/2000,” he said.

Categories: Iran lobby, Iran scam, Israel, Jews, Media, national security, Obama and Iran, Obama and the media
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »