Posted tagged ‘Nazis’

Islamic Extremism: Who is Purest of Them All?

December 13, 2017

Islamic Extremism: Who is Purest of Them All? Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, December 13, 2017

In Europe, Islamic radicalism has caused the largest emigration of Jews since the Holocaust (40,000 Jews have left France just in the last decade). Many Europeans might sentimentally think of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims pouring into Europe as “the new Jews” — even though their culture is virtually opposite to the Jews’ — but perhaps the Europeans should be aware that they have now forced the Jews to flee twice in the modern era.

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

In the twentieth century, targets were churches and synagogues; today, they are churches, synagogues, mosques, temples — wherever there is a faith, even a Muslim one, that these Islamic fundamentalists want to “purify”.

Radical Islam has declared war on the pillars of the West: modernity, science, rationalism, tolerance, equality under the law, freedom of expression and the dignity of the individual, to name only a few. Many of these ideas are currently under threat in Western Europe.

Many Europeans might sentimentally think of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims pouring into Europe as “the new Jews” – even though their culture is virtually opposite to the Jews’ — but perhaps the Europeans should be aware that they have now forced the Jews to flee twice in the modern era.

The number of victims in the jihadist attack at a Sufi Mosque in Egypt has risen to 305 and is destined to rise even more. Inside this number there is another one, even more tragic: the 27 children murdered by Islamic terrorists. It has been not only one of the world’s most sickening terror attacks since 9/11. It was, in intent, a genocidal attack aimed to erase a religion and a community from the face of earth.

The murder of children is the most ruthless face of the war that radical Islam has declared: Palestinian children used as human shields by HamasIsraeli children butchered in buses and cars, Iraqi children massacred by smiling terrorists with candy, French children brought as recruits to RaqqaIranian children sent by the Ayatollah Khomeini to Iranian camps, Christian children wiped out by the Taliban in Pakistan, Western children murdered in BarcelonaManchester and Nice, and the children of Beslan forced to drink their own urine before being killed. How much longer will we have to update the ferocity of radical Islam?

Some Muslim writers have compared the savagery of extremist Muslims to that of the Nazis. In his novel “Le village de l’Allemande“, the Muslim Algerian writer Boualem Sansal compared the similarities: “Single party, militarization, propaganda, falsification of history, xenophobia, affirmation of a plot hatched by Israel and the United States, etc.” According to another Muslim dissident, Naser Khader, “the radical Muslims are the Nazis of Islam”.

Naser Khader, a Muslim dissident who is a Danish Member of Parliament, says “the radical Muslims are the Nazis of Islam”. (Image source: Jyske Bank TV video screenshot)

The massacre at the Sufi mosque in Egypt is reminiscent of the worst Nazi massacre France, in Oradour-sur-Glane, where German troops executed 642 people. Women and children were taken to the church, which was then set on fire. In the twentieth century, the targets were churches and synagogues; today, they are churches, synagogues, mosques, temples — wherever there is a faith, even a Muslim one, that these Islamic fundamentalists want to “purify”.

Physical violence is how the Nazis were able to “cleanse” most of Europe of the Jews — by shooting, terrorizing, gassing and pressuring others to flee. The same strategy, for Christians and other minorities as well, is being pursued by the Islamists. By butchering 350 people, they want to terrify Christians and Sufis and erase them from Sinai. Random lynchings and other attacks were able to pressure Jews into abandoning North Africa and the Middle East, almost in its entirety. In Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, pogroms erupted against the Jewish communities; nearly a million Jews fled.

Radical Islam is building, under our noses, a Brave New World of mass-murder and religious submission. Its adherents seem to want to change individuals in the name of a deadly totalitarian ideology based on a specific interpretation of Islam.

Just as Nazis led a war of extermination against Jews, Slavs, Romanis, Jehovah’s Witnesses, leftists, Catholic clergy, Freemasons, gays and others, extremist Muslims have declared war on Jews, Christians, Atheists, Yazidis, minorities such as Alawites, Kurds, Baha’is, Sufis and Druze, and even many of their own Muslims, branded as “apostates”. At the same time, radical Islam has declared war on the pillars of the West: modernity, science, rationalism, tolerance, equality under the law, freedom of expression and the dignity of the individual, to name only a few. Many of these ideas are currently under threat in Western Europe.

Recently in Iraq, a new mass grave was found, filled with Yazidi children. The day before that, a mosque in Nigeria was attacked. It is almost impossible to make a detailed account of the jihadist massacres that take place each week. Ten years ago, Islamic terrorists attacked Yazidi villages in Iraq: 500 people were murdered; entire communities were wiped out. Recently, 500 more people were slaughtered in a Somali terror attack.

In Europe, Jewish synagogues, if they were not protected by police and soldiers, would meet the same fate. That is what came to pass with Christians in the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey (1914-1923), the murder and expulsion of its Pontic Greeks (1915-1922) , the continuing attacks on Christian Copts in Egypt, as well as with Iraqi Christian churches in Nineveh and throughout the Middle East. In Toulouse, France, Jewish children were gunned down just for being Jews for the first time since World War II.

These murderers are working to build a pan-Islamic dictatorship that sucks in the spilled blood of every culture and faith — including their own. Islamic extremists have effectively been able to redraw the map of the Middle East by committing genocide against so many.

In Europe, Islamic radicalism has caused the largest emigration of Jews since the Holocaust (40,000 Jews have left France just in the last decade). Many Europeans might sentimentally think of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims pouring into Europe as “the new Jews” — even though their culture is virtually opposite to the Jews’ — but perhaps the Europeans should be aware that they have now forced the Jews to flee twice in the modern era.

The level of persecution against Christians is “worse than at any time in history,” according to the European-based Aid to the Church in Need. It also predicts that if the decline of its religion continues at the same rate as in the past two years, Christianity in Iraq could be wiped out as early as 2020. Islamists are erasing civilizations. Is Europe’s next?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

UK Muslim Labour Candidate: We’re Brainwashed into Thinking Hitler Was the Bad Guy

November 12, 2017

UK Muslim Labour Candidate: We’re Brainwashed into Thinking Hitler Was the Bad Guy, The Point (FrontPage Magazine), Daniel Greenfield, November 12, 2017

(Please see also, The horrifying scale of antisemitism in the British Labour Party and Kristallnacht, and Our Modern-Day Approach to Antisemitism. — DM)

The left embraced Islamists to be tolerant. And ended up embracing Islamofascists. Even while bellowing that everyone who didn’t embrace them was a Nazi. While their new friends defended Hitler.

Nasreen Khan, a former member of George Galloway’s Respect Party, made offensive remarks about Jews on Facebook five years ago.

Miss Khan, a Muslim who has since joined the Labour Party, said they were ‘inappropriate and unacceptable’.

But despite the remarks, she is on a two-person shortlist for the Labour nomination in a safe seat in Bradford at next year’s local elections.

In 2012, writing under a video titled ‘The Palestine you need to know’, she said: ‘It’s such a shame that the history teachers in our school never taught us this but they are the first to start brainwashing us and our children into thinking the bad guy was Hitler.

‘What have the Jews done good in this world?’ When questioned about the comment, she had added: ‘No, I’m not a Nazi, I’m an ordinary British Muslim that had an opinion and put it across. We have worse people than Hitler in this world now.’

The Labour Party’s position is, no comment.

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “We do not comment on internal selection matters.”

But don’t worry. This isn’t anti-Semitism. It’s anti-Zionism. The two just happen to be really hard to distinguish.

Robert Spencer: What if the media had covered World War II the way it covers jihad?

March 10, 2017

Robert Spencer: What if the media had covered World War II the way it covers jihad? Jihad Watch via YouTube, March 9, 2017

 

Winston Churchill: Anti-German Hate Group Leader?

February 6, 2017

Winston Churchill: Anti-German Hate Group Leader?, Jihad Watch

(Hmmm. I wonder what analogy Mr. Spencer may be drawing. — DM)

churchill-1

Imagine if this were 1930, and the Southern Poverty Law Center existed, and it issued a lavishly illustrated, apparently meticulously documented report on critics of the Nazis, dubbing them “anti-German hate group leaders.” There were profiles of Winston Churchill, Edgar Mowrer, and other early critics of Hitler, noting when they had made false claims about Hitler (false, that is, according to the Nazis) and charging them with “hate” and “anti-German bias.”

Imagine then that the mainstream media, whenever it quoted Churchill, Mowrer, or the others, described them as “anti-German,” and noted that the Southern Poverty Law Center said that they were hate group leaders. It would call them “rabble rousers” and “wide boys” and “demogogues.” Quotes from Goebbels and Göring would also invariably be included, calmly explaining the truth of the matters at hand and patiently answering questions about what a shame it was that they had to deal with the likes of Churchill. This kind of coverage would be universal: critics of Nazism were never described in the mainstream media in anything but pejorative terms. Whenever they got mainstream media attention, they were challenged to respond to charges that they were “anti-German” and “spreading hate.” Their views were more often presented by the SPLC and others who dubbed them “anti-German” than by themselves. The leading authorities the media consulted about Hitler and Nazism were favorable to both, and opposed only to excessive violence by the Brownshirts, which they stressed was inconsistent with the spirit of Nazism, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Meanwhile, the critics were constantly vilified, ridiculed and mocked, and likened to the Ku Klux Klan and other genuinely hateful groups. People wrote that they wanted to attack them physically, and that it would be legitimate to do so.

Imagine that this situation prevailed, without any cracks in the edifice, for five years. Ten years. Fifteen years. Imagine that it prevailed as Hitler came to power, as he began persecuting the Jews, as he began his rearmament of Germany, as he bullied weak Western leaders, who were anxious to appease him anyway, into allowing him to take Austria and Czechoslovakia, and finally as he invaded Poland and the Western powers finally decided to fight back.

Imagine then that every step that Britain, France, and ultimately the Soviet Union and the United States took to defend themselves against Hitler and the Nazis was decried by the mainstream media and a huge segment of the American public as “anti-German” and a manifestation of hatred and bigotry. Every step FDR took to prosecute the war was denounced and even voided by federal court orders; he was derided as a fool, a criminal, an authoritarian ruler, and there were open calls not only for his impeachment, but for a coup to remove him from power, and even numerous calls for his assassination.

In that scenario, which side do you think would have won the war?

Nonsense: Refugees from terror lands are not like Holocaust refugees

January 29, 2017

Nonsense: Refugees from terror lands are not like Holocaust refugees, Israel National News, Jeff Dunetz, January 29, 2017

President Trump on Friday signed sweeping new orders tightening refugee and visa policies including suspending almost all refugee admissions for four months and indefinitely barring entry for some Syrians. Trump said the new measure was intended “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.” The executive order also suspends visa entry into the U.S. from seven terror-prone countries: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen.

Liberals of course  are going crazy. They say that Trump created this order because he is Islamophobic. They’ve even come up with a ridiculous comparison, “Anne Frank was a refugee also.” Indeed she was, but the reason for Trump’s action was totally different from the reason Anne Frank and many like her were prevented from coming to the US.

Trump’s executive action was made to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States. FDR prevented refugees from coming into this country because they were Jewish and he thought America didn’t need any more Jews.

In June 2016 then CIA Director Brennan said during congressional hearings that one of the ways terrorists infiltrate western nations is by embedding themselves within groups of refugees.

Brennan explained that ISIL has been recruiting and training westerners to infiltrate their countries of birth and commit terrorist acts. Interestingly, he identifies refugee flows as one of the ways terrorists can infiltrate. That seems to suggest that the United States needs to be very careful who it lets into the country, “which hasn’t been a priority for this administration, but there seems to be one presidential candidate who wants to put a temporary stop to immigration from certain countries that house radical Islamic I mean international terrorists.”

“And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel. Further, as we have seen in Orlando, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, ISIL is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. Last month, for example, a senior ISIL figure publicly urged the group’s followers to conduct attacks in their home countries if they were unable to travel to Syria and Iraq.”

President Trump’s action delays acceptance of refugees until the DHS can figure out how to ensure they’ve kept the embedded terrorists from hiding within the crowds of legitimate refugees. His motivation is to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

In the case of the Holocaust, the Nazi’s weren’t embedding themselves with the Jewish refugees. It wasn’t even suspected. The Jewish refugees were kept out because FDR was a bigot, his hatred of Jews caused thousands to be added to the ranks of Hitler’s victims.

Some point to the fact FDR didn’t bomb and destroy the train tracks that were shipping Jews to the concentration camps. Others say that bombing wouldn’t have prevented anything. The real question needing to be explored is why didn’t FDR allow more Jews into the country? And why didn’t he pressure Britain to allow Jews to move from Nazi controlled areas into what was then called Palestine?

In the book “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith,” historian Rafael Medoff suggests that Roosevelt failed to take relatively simple measures that would have saved significant numbers of Jews during the Holocaust, because his vision for America was one that had a small number of Jews. In other words, FDR doomed many Jews to suffer not because he wanted them to die, but because he didn’t want more Jews living in his neighborhood.

In a piece for the Brandeis Center, Medoff shared some of the hateful/public anti-Semitic statements Roosevelt made when he let his guard down: 

In 1936, he characterized a tax maneuver by the publisher of the New York Times as “a dirty Jewish trick.” In 1938, FDR privately suggested to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, one of the era’s most prominent American Jewish leaders, that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were to blame for provoking Antisemitism there.  In 1939, Roosevelt expressed (to a U.S. senator) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins.”  In 1940, he dismissed pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff.” In 1941, President Roosevelt remarked at a cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon.

The most detailed of FDR’s statements about Jews was made during his meeting on January 17, 1943, in Casablanca, with leaders of the new local regime in Allied-liberated North Africa. U.S. ambassador Robert Murphy remarked that the 330,000 Jews in North Africa were “very much disappointed that ‘the war for liberation’ had not immediately resulted in their being given their complete freedom.”

(Before the war, when the Jews lived under the colonial French regime, they enjoyed rights similar to French citizens. But when the pro-Nazi Vichy French took over the French colonies in 1940, they stripped Jews of those rights. In 1943, upon the defeat of the Vichyites, the Jews had expected their rights would be restored.)

According to the official record of the conversation (later published by the U.S. government in its ‘Foreign Relations of the United States’ series), the president replied that “the number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population,” which “would not permit them to overcrowd the professions.”

FDR explained that his plan “would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc, in Germany, were Jews.” (It is not clear where FDR obtained those wildly inflated statistics.)

Perhaps his distaste for Jews was the reason that, while there were many actions FDR could have taken to stop or slow down the Holocaust, he didn’t.

“He could have quietly permitted the immigration quotas to be filled to their legal limit — that alone would have saved 190,000 lives,” Medoff said.

“He could have pressed the British to open Palestine’s doors to Jewish refugees. He could have authorized the use of empty troop-supply ships to bring refugees to stay in the U.S. temporarily, until the end of the war. He could have permitted refugees to stay as tourists in a U.S. territory, such as the Virgin Islands, until it was safe for them to return to Europe. He could have authorized the bombing of Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to it, which would have interrupted the mass-murder process.”

Asked to respond to the argument that it was better for Roosevelt to focus on winning the war than divert resources to bomb Auschwitz, Medoff said “[b]ombing Auschwitz would not have required any diversion of resources, because U.S. planes were already bombing targets that were less than five miles from the gas chambers, during the summer and autumn of 1944.”

It really goes beyond that. FDR was reluctant to speak out against the impending genocide

On August 25, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt brought her friend Alice Hamilton, who had recently spent three months in Germany, to Hyde Park to give FDR a detailed eyewitness account of German brutality against the Jews. He still refused to publicly criticize Hitler.

On Roosevelt’s most blatant acts of bigotry involved the St. Louis whose story was  told by Pamela Adams at Constitution.com

“On May 13, 1939, the St. Louis set sail from Hamburg, Germany, to Cuba with 937 Jewish refugees on board. Captain Gustav Schroder, a non-Jewish German, was determined to rescue these men, women and children from Nazi Germany. To his dismay, he was forced to return 907 passengers to Europe, landing in Antwerp, Belgium, on June 17, 1939.

“Four months before Hitler invaded Poland, officially starting World War II, Jews were fleeing Germany by the thousands. Captain Schroder agreed to take a shipload on his luxury cruise liner to Cuba. Shortly before leaving, he was informed Cuba rejected most of the visas issued to his passengers. He left with them anyway, praying for a miracle.

“(…) Upon arrival at Cuba, the St. Louis was not allowed to dock. Captain Schroder worked for a week in vain to allow his passengers to disembark. He was denied. Only 22 Jewish refugees were allowed entry as they did have acceptable passage, along with four Spanish citizens and two Cuban nationals. One gentleman, so distraught over returning to Nazi Germany, attempted suicide. He was taken to a hospital in Havana for treatment for his wounds.

“Captain Schroder turned to America, pleading to President Franklin D. Roosevelt for help. Claims of improper paperwork, German Jewish immigration quotas and national security were given as excuses for rejecting the passengers. Afraid Schroder would run his ship ashore in Florida, forcing America to accept the refugees, the Coast Guard was sent to watch the St. Louis as it sailed close to our shores.

“Finding no help anywhere in North America, Schroder was forced to return to Europe. Determined to be the liberator of his remaining 907 passengers (as one person died during the voyage), Schroder refused to return his ship to Germany until all the refugees were given protection in other countries. The United States finally stepped in and helped secure those arrangements in European countries.

“Once those agreements for asylum were made, Captain Schroder docked his boat in Antwerp, Belgium, on June 17th. The United Kingdom accepted 288 passengers while France welcomed 224, Belgium accepted 214, and the Netherlands received 181. In less than a year, Hitler invaded Belgium and France in May of 1940, again threatening those refugees who for a moment had a taste of true freedom. It is estimated that 254 of the 907 returned to Europe were victims of the Holocaust, losing their lives in concentration or internment camps.”

Today the liberals are screaming that any delay or extreme vetting of refugees from those terror-prone countries is an act of Islamophobia, even though CIA Director Brennan said during congressional testimony that refugee flows is one the ways terrorists infiltrate western nations. They are even trying to make the ignorant comparisons between the situation delaying the acceptance of refugees from the terror-prone countries and the barring of refugees from Hitler.

The reason for the delay, announced Friday, was to protect American lives. The Holocaust refugees were kept out because of the bigotry of liberal hero FDR that caused approximately 200K extra Jews die in the Holocaust, because he didn’t want more Jews living in America.

Bottom line: it is pure nonsense, an intellectually dishonest — or at least ignorant — argument to compare the two groups of refugees or the belief systems of the two presidents.

Posted with permission from The Lid.

 

New York Times: Muslims celebrated Hitler on Mohammed’s birthday

November 22, 2015

New York Times: Muslims celebrated Hitler on Mohammed’s birthday, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 21, 2015

hqdefault (1)

From the historical file of politically incorrect facts that we’re supposed to pretend never happened. Elder of Ziyon dug up this 1937 New York Times story.

All Arabs Celebrate Prophet’s Birthday

Palestine Arabs outdid themselves today in celebrating Mouled el Nebi, the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed. Never before have there beer such elaborate festivities, decorations and processions as throughout the country today….

Several days prior to the festival all buildings in Arab quarters were elaborately decorated, and pictures of Hitler, Mussolini and Fawzi el Kaoukgi, an Iraqian who came to Palestine during the disturbances last Summer to organize an “Arab revolt” were displayed. The government immediately ordered the removal of Fawzi el Kaoukgi’s picture.

At Jaffa, the swastika was hoisted by Arabs over several buildings and Mussolini was loudly cheered.

Fawzi was a Nazi colonel and an ally of Hitler’s Mufti (he who must not be mentioned). He vowed to throw the Jews into the sea, but instead he failed miserably when he led the Arab Liberation Army, during the Muslim invasion of Israel. The ALA was a sort of ISIS of the day, consisting a motley crew of Muslim Jihadists from around the world, and Fawzi was notorious for brutally executing and torturing prisoners. It had a Muslim Brotherhood component

Much of their venture was unfinished Holocaust business.

 It turned out to be the daily record of Yusuf Begovic of Pale, a town near Sarajevo in modern-day Bosnia-Herzegovina. In it Begovic had described his activities as a cook for the “Arab Army of Liberation.”

Traubner described who Begovic had been serving: “35 Yugoslav Muslims who had a good reason to expect to be among the first to occupy and loot Tel Aviv, were part of a group of some thousands who came to the Middle East to join the jihad against Israel.”…

The plan didn’t work too well. The Muslim Nazi led his people to defeat. But back in the 1930s, he and the Nazis were the great hope for killing Jews.

Nazi flags and pictures of Hitler and Mussolini were being displayed by many Arab shops in the Old City today in connection with the celebration of Mohammed’s birthday.

Arab children thronged the teeming section’s narrow, winding streets, shouting: “Death to the High Commissioner (Sir Arthur Grenfell Wauchope)! Death to the Jews!”

Nothing Nazi-like about that.

Netanyahu accurately describes the Mufti’s role in the Holocaust

October 22, 2015

Netanyahu accurately describes the Mufti’s role in the Holocaustelderofziyon2 via You Tube, October 22, 2015