RUTHFULLY YOURS

Let me quote the words of Jerome Roos, writer, filmmaker and PhD Researcher at the European University Institute in Florence, who wrote the following on October 4, 2014 in TeleSUR English.

“As Kurdish forces put up a heroic fight to save the democratic stronghold of Kobane, the US-led coalition seems content to let ISIS commit a massacre.”

Here we have a moral crisis affecting what is left of the free world. Will the approximately 12,000 Kurdish men, women and children left in Kobane be allowed by the Obama administration to succumb to the horror that is the Islamic State?

Reports from the beleaguered and all but surrounded Kurdish city claim that a Kurdish female fighter blew herself up with a grenade rather than be captured and face a cruel and pitiless fate at the hands of the ISIS Islamo-Nazis.

Already, the ISIS black flags of death have appeared on some of the buildings in Kobane and there is great fear of a frightful massacre in the city if the Kurdish fighters cannot hold back the ISIS hordes. At this time of writing, pictures have appeared of ISIS thugs holding the severed heads of what they say are female Kurdish fighters.

Meanwhile, the hapless Kurds are – for some unaccountable reason – not being supplied by the Obama administration with 21st century weapons to defend themselves against the well-armed Islamo-Nazis; terrorists who possess highly sophisticated arms and tanks they looted from overrun U.S. supplied Iraqi army bases.

Turkish forces have prevented Turkish and Syrian Kurds from joining the fight primarily because they – like the Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians – have always denied the Kurdish people a sovereign, independent state of their own in Kurdish ancient and ancestral lands; territories that happen to straddle modern Arab, Turkish and Iranian territories.

US military asks Gulf allies to please stop tailgating fighter jets
http://nsroundtable.org/search/notable-quotables-archive/

The US has praised the countries of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their help in launching decisive air strikes against the Islamic State over the past week.

“We’re absolutely delighted to be working with the air forces of our regional allies in combatting this growing international threat,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.

“However, we would request that when on such vital airborne combat missions our Arab friends please refrain from flying their F-16s right on the tail of US fighter jets, flashing their lights and trying to overtake.”

The head-to-foot veiling of women alarms and distresses those who regard the human female as more than a set of reproductive organs capable of performing domestic duties. Wear the burka if you must, but don’t whine about the reaction it inspires

burqa3I had intended to leave the subject of Islam. What is there to say to those people who understand the dire threat it represents to our way of life, and what can be said to the dolts that don’t? The recent ridiculous controversy over the burka drew me back to the subject.

Tony Abbott made perfectly measured comments on the confronting nature of a woman dressed in a beehive suit (as Bill Maher described it) and the creeping Jesuses came out in force. Tanya Plibersek apparently finds Abbott in Speedos, performing a public service by patrolling our beaches, confronting. I find Plibersek confronting no matter how she is dressed or whatever she is doing. Superciliousness personified. I find Christine Milne and Andrew Wilkie and Chris Bowen, among other pissants, confronting. Do Australian values mean nothing to them? Is their national self-esteem so low that any alien cultural abomination passes muster? Or is it just a tawdry case of their being votes in it?

Let me say it in simple terms. Women in Australia don’t dress like that. Subjugated women may dress like that in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Iran and in other benighted Islamic backwaters, but not in Australia. Women in Australia live the truth that they stand equal with men before God – “there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”. (Galatians 3:28)

Of course in our free society, unlike the societies from which most members of our Muslim community or their parents came, women and men are — and should be — legally allowed to dress as they like. Provided, that is, they don’t walk down Main Street flashing their bottoms or genitalia. That doesn’t mean we can’t have opinions on the way people dress. And it doesn’t mean in this age of worldwide Islamic terrorism and barbarism that we can’t implement sensible security measures.

Beehive suits are permissible on public streets and in parks. Entry into private establishments is entirely up to the proprietors. I was not allowed into a Newtown pub wearing a cap. Entry into potential terrorist targets — airports, courts, state and federal parliament buildings, and the like — should be disallowed, full stop, no exceptions.

Even if the identity of a person is checked on entry, if there is more than one of them, how can they individually be tracked? Two or more beehive suits go into the washroom together; which one comes out first? And, by the way, presumably extra administrative cost has to be incurred by ensuring women staff are on hand to usher the Muslim ladies to a separate room where their facial feature can be examined away from the prying eyes of strange men.

Give us all a break. Have we completely lost our collective common sense? Is it a joke? No, unfortunately it is not.

As ISIS prepares to take the Turkish border city of Kobani, the new Caliphate’s use of social media as a promotional tool (which is rather more effective than, say, the Democrats’ or Justin Trudeau’s) has begun to inspire what Obama would presumably call the jihad’s junior “junior varsity” teams:

Boko Haram, the extremist Islamic group, reportedly beheaded seven people Monday in Nigeria in revenge attacks, which were described by one resident as the way butchers “slaughter goats.”

From the report, you might get the impression that that’s a figure of speech. But it’s literally true. At the end of my piece on the beheading by an infidel-hating Muslim Oklahoman of his female colleague Colleen Hufford, I wrote:

It is not a pleasant way to die, in part because it requires more expertise than you might think. A decade ago, a young lady in my employ emailed a backgrounder on the subject to me in my room at the Grand Hyatt in Amman the night before I set off on my motoring tour of Iraq. If you’re lucky, your killer will insert the knife from the side, the sharp edge pointing to your front. One skilled thrust forward will cut the jugular, the carotid artery, the esophagus – and it will all be over in seconds. On the evidence of their social media videos, the ISIS boys are not that good: They go in from the front, blade facing backward, sawing back and forth for minutes on end.

That’s like “slaughtering goats”. You go in from the front because you need maximum blood loss to tenderize the meat. When ISIS and Boko Haram decapitate men, and women and children, in that manner, they do so not simply to kill us but to kill us as animals. Or as this Euro-jihadist puts it:

I asked him, ‘Is it good to kill people?’ He said, ‘If they’re not Muslim, yes.’

Because, if they’re not Muslim, they’re not really “people”. Which is why it is necessary to slaughter them like goats.

This article is mainly for those Americans who naively insist that Islamic terrorists are of no concern here. Because they know nice Muslims, there are too few fanatics, they do not see them here or if we are nice to them they will be nice to us – as they were with (beheaded) journalists Daniel Pearl, James Foley and Stephen Sotloff?

Listen to the threatening words and actions below, of their vicious leaders, here in the USA. They are throughout America from New York to California and coming across the US-Mexican border.

Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Sheikh convicted of planning a “day of rage” by blowing up New York buildings in 1991, called on Muslims to “conquer the land of the infidels.”

Imam Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali Masjid of the Al Islam mosque, Oakland, CA “We must implement Islam as a totality (in which) Allah controls every place… the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress.”

Imam Abdul Alim Musa of the Al Masjid mosque, Washington, D.C. “If you don’t give us justice. If you don’t give us equality. If you don’t give us our share of America. If you don’t stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down.”

Imam Muhammad Al-Asi former Imam at the Washington, D.C. Islamic Center “Now, all our Imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public … Only carrying arms will do this task.”

Imam Zaid Shakir, former Muslim Chaplain at Yale University. “Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah.”

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf: of the Mosque at Ground Zero NY, NY “I do not believe in religious dialogue.”

BY GIDON BEN-ZVI, HARRY BEN-ZVI

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the UN General Assembly in New York took last week took place in the Western world’s epicenter for the promotion, codification and implementation of institutional anti-Semitism.

After all, it is no coincidence that behind every conflict Israel has ever fought there has been a failed United Nations resolution.

Simply scrape the gloss off the noble sentiments expressed in the Charter of the United Nations and you will discover that the world body’s Near East policy has from its inception fanned the flames of Arab nationalism, perpetuating regional conflicts that have effectively preserved a status quo sympathetic to authoritarian Arab regimes, at the expense of Israeli security and sovereignty.

The die was cast by Great Britain, which had occupied modern-day Israel from the end of the First World War until the 1947 UN partition. The European-based realpolitik that catered to Arab nationalism and authoritarian rule came at the expense of historical Jewish claims and contemporary Jewish interests.

A decade later, following the 1956 Sinai War, the United Nations forced an Israeli withdrawal from the Peninsula by establishing an international peace keeping force to demilitarize the area. This state of affairs held sway until 1967, when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded and received a UN withdrawal of said international peacekeeping force.

This unexplained retreat by the United Nations facilitated a massive Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai, and an eventual Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Teheran to Israeli shipping, an act of war that sparked the Six-Day-War.

Fast forward to the 1970s and you will find that since the UN was first charged with preserving peace in Lebanon, the country has degenerated from being the ‘Paris of the Middle East’ to a terrorist caliphate. Simply swap out ‘PLO’ for ‘Hezbollah’ and a disturbing historical trend emerges.

The UN peacekeeping force’s raison d’etre in Lebanon was to preserve ‘stability’ by facilitating a withdrawal of Israeli forces. With international peacekeepers filling the void created by the IDF’s exit, southern Lebanon would thus be demilitarized.

Handbook so controversial Canadian cops rejected it.

The U.S. State Department endorsed on Wednesday a controversial anti-terror handbook published by Canada’s Muslim community that refers to jihad as “noble” and urges law enforcement to avoid using terms such as “Islamic extremism.”

The handbook, published earlier this month by two Canadian Muslim community organizations, was so controversial that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) flatly rejected the manual and ordered its officers not to use it.

Yet the State Department’s official anti-terrorism Twitter feed, called Think Again Turn Away, appeared to endorse the controversial handbook on Twitter and linked to a positive article about it.

The handbook, titled United Against Terrorism, has become a contentious issue for the RCMP since its release. Several sections of the guide instruct Muslim community members not to cooperate with police while others claim jihad “is a noble concept.”

The RCMP ultimately decided to reject the book, citing its “adversarial tone.”

“After a final review of the handbook, the RCMP could not support the adversarial tone set by elements of the booklet and therefore directed RCMP Manitoba not to proceed with this initiative,” the police force said in a statement posted on its website.

The handbook itself recommends that “intelligence and law enforcement officials” should “avoid terms such as ‘Islamist terrorism’, ‘Islamicism’, and ‘Islamic extremism’ in favor of more accurate terms such as ‘al Qaeda inspired extremist,’” according to one section of the handbook, which still bears RCMP’s official logo.

Law enforcement officials also are told to “discontinue any inappropriate information gathering techniques including (but not limited to) showing up at workplaces, intimidating newcomers, questioning individuals religiosity, and discouraging legal representation,” according to the handbook.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/a-cameroonian-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ako Eyong, a journalist from Cameroon, West Africa, where he became a political dissident and was eventually exiled for critiquing the government. He is the author of the new novel, The Vision of the Blind King.

Ako came on the show to discuss “A Cameroonian Dissident’s Love Affair With America,” discussing his appreciation of living in the U.S., his new novel, the vital importance for a nation not to abandon God, the conflict between love and fear, and much, much more:

Don’t miss this week’s second episode with Conservative Entrepreneur Monty Morton, who came on the show to emphasize Two Lethal Threats to America:

During the recent race riots in Ferguson, Missouri, CNN’s Jake Tapper was walking down a street and filming a segment when someone emerged out of the shadows behind him, holding a banner emblazoned, “ISIS is here.” At that point it was just a threat, or a boast, or both, but on Tuesday Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said that the Islamic State was doing all it could to make it a reality: “At least ten ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas.”

“There’s nobody talking about it,” Hunter added. “If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border. It’s that simple…They caught them at the border, therefore we know that ISIS is coming across the border. If they catch five or ten of them then you know there’s going to be dozens more that did not get caught by the border patrol.”

Indeed. And jihadist exploitation of our southern border is nothing new. In June 2014, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) foreshadowed Hunter’s announcement when he said: “This jihadist group ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have promised direct confrontation with America. He is looking forward to that day and he has said that publicly, we should believe him when he says that. These folks hate everything about the United States.” What’s more, “Of course the way they would come to the United States would be through the porous border with Mexico. The drug cartels will bring people into the country no matter who they are — for money. Everyone in the world knows that the border between the United States and Mexico is completely porous.”

Jihad terrorists and their enablers and accomplices have been entering the U.S. illegally by means of the Mexican border for many years. According to TheBlaze, “Hezbollah members and supporters have entered the U.S. through the southern border as early as 2002, with the case of Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison by Mexican authorities on charges of organized crime and immigrant smuggling. Mucharrafille had owned a cafe in the border city of Tijuana, near San Diego. In 2002, he was arrested for smuggling 200 people into the U.S., including Hezbollah supporters, according to a 2009 Congressional report.”

And in May 2010, the Department of Homeland Security warned local police along the southern border about a Muslim named Mohamed Ali who was suspected of being a member of the jihad terror group al Shabaab. An official who spoke to CNN about the warning said that it wasn’t clear whether or not Mohamed Ali was trying to enter the country illegally, but it seems unlikely that such an alert would have been sent out to police along the border if that had not been the case. Ali was, in any case, apparently involved in operating a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” that had brought hundreds of Somali Muslims into the U.S. illegally.

“We’re liberals! We’re liberals. We’re not crazy tea-baggers,” Bill Maher protested after his televised argument with Ben Affleck about Islam.

“We are not bigoted people. On the contrary, we’re trying to stand up for the principles of liberalism!” Maher added. “I think we’re just saying we need to identify illiberalism wherever we find it in the world, and not forgive it because it comes from [a group] people perceive as a minority.”

But despite Maher’s protests, the majority of liberals would agree with Affleck that criticizing Islam is racist. Liberals claim that the Islamic State is Un-Islamic. It would be more accurate to state that liberals are illiberal. Liberalism, even the form that was in common usage not too long ago, is as dead as Lenin.

Ben Affleck isn’t a liberal. He’s an enthusiast of revisionist Communist historian Howard Zinn. The modern liberal of today is uninterested in identifying “illiberalism” since he is an illiberal man of the left. The most significant difference between the two is not simply political, but psychological. Liberals used to think about issues. Leftists respond to ideological cues while operating on a purely tribal wavelength.

Affleck’s assertion that criticizing Islam is racist is impossible to argue with. It’s completely wrong on multiple levels, but it’s not an argument. It’s a denunciation. It doesn’t advance an argument; it rejects the argument and the arguer as illegitimate. And it’s an ideological cue telling everyone else to follow.

Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse. The denunciation places the target outside the consensus. Calling Maher a “racist” makes him a Tea Party member no matter how much he clings to a liberal identification. It makes him an outsider.