Displaying posts published in

June 2016

Palestinians: Anarchy Returns to the West Bank by Khaled Abu Toameh

Hostility towards the Palestinian Authority (PA) seems to have reached unprecedented heights among refugee camp residents.

A chat with young Palestinians in any refugee camp in the West Bank will reveal a driving sense of betrayal. In these camps, the PA seems as much the enemy as Israel. They speak of the PA as a corrupt and incompetent body that is managed by “mafia leaders.” Many camp activists believe it is only a matter of time before Palestinians launch an intifada against the PA.

Nablus, the largest city in the West Bank, is surrounded by a number of refugee camps that are effectively controlled by dozens of Fatah gangs that have long been terrorizing the city’s wealthy clans and leading figures.

Hamas, of course, is cheering on the sidelines as it watches the PA-controlled territories going to hell.

Palestinians fear that their communities may be facing a return to anarchy and falatan amni, or “security chaos.”

Recent incidents are yet another sign of the Palestinian Authority’s failure to enforce law and order, especially in refugee camps such as Balata (near Nablus) Qalandya (near Ramallah) and the Jenin refugee camp.

Moreover, these incidents are an indication of mounting tensions among rival camps inside Fatah and between the refugees and the Palestinians living in the big cities surrounding the camps.

These camps, which are hotbeds for gunmen and terror groups, have long been off-limits to the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces. Tens of thousands of Palestinians live in these three major refugee camps in the West Bank. Although the refugee camps there located in areas controlled by the PA, the Palestinian security forces do their best to steer clear of them. Attempts by Palestinian security forces to arrest camp residents wanted for various crimes have often resulted in armed confrontations.

Turkey’s Conquest-Fetish Tales from Erdoganistan by Burak Bekdil

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his fellow Islamists are keen admirers of the idea that Muslim Turks capture lands belonging to other civilizations because, in this mindset, “conquest” means the spread of Islam.

“Look, now there is the Islamophobia malady in the West … [Its] aim is to stop [the further spread of Islam]. But they will not be able to succeed.” — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, June 4, 2016.

In Erdogan’s narrative, Muslim Turks have never invaded foreign lands by the force of the sword. What they did was just conquering hearts. This is not even funny.

1071 is a very special year for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — and his Islamist ideologues. Erdogan often speaks about his “2071 targets,” a reference to his vision of “Great Turkey,” on the 1000th anniversary of a battle that paved the Turks’ way into where they still live.

In 1071, the Seljuk Turks did not arrive in Anatolia from their native Central Asian steppes with flowers in their hands. Instead they were in full combat gear, fighting a series of wars against the Christian Byzantine [Eastern Roman] Empire and featuring a newfound Islamic zeal. The Battle of Manzikert in 1071 is widely seen as the moment when the Byzantines lost the war against the Turks: before the end of the century, the Turks were in control of the entire Anatolian peninsula.

Another divine date for Erdogan is May 29, 1453. That day saw the fall of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, after an Ottoman army invaded what is today Istanbul, modern Turkey’s biggest city. The conquest of Constantinople was not a peaceful event either. The city’s siege lasted for 53 days and cost thousands of lives. The Byzantine defeat left the Ottoman armies unchecked, clearing the way for their advance into Christian Europe in the centuries to come. The long and violent Ottoman march into Europe came to a halt in 1683, when the Ottomans were defeated during the siege of Vienna. By then the Ottomans were in control of north Africa, most parts of the Middle East and central and eastern Europe, totaling 5.2 million square kilometers of land.

On every May 29, the Turks, proud of being — possibly — the world’s only nation that celebrates the capture by the sword of their biggest city from another civilization, take to the streets for grand ceremonies. The 563th anniversary of the conquest was celebrated with a major event created by a team of 1,200 people. It saw a 563-man Mehter concert [an Ottoman military band], a show by the Turkish Air Force aerobatics team, special conquest celebrations, a fireworks display, live broadcasts in six different languages and the world’s largest 3D mapping stage used to reenact the conquest.

VIDEO:Milo Yiannopoulos on why Feminists are Silent on Migrant Sexual Assault *****

You could almost get the idea that there are some things you simply are not allowed to say. Criticism of Islam, for instance, which saw the gay and thoroughly amusing conservative Milo Yiannopoulos suspended this morning from Twitter. There has been yet another Islamist massacre in Florida, you see, and unfettered discussion of the event might further the view that the Religion of Peace is an example of false advertising. The ban was lifted after an outcry, but how many other, less prominent voices have been gagged for good? There is no way to know, but let the clips below serve as a guide to the sentiments that set the gatekeepers of acceptable speech clutching at their pearls.

First, Yiannopoulos on Western feminists’ betrayal of their oppressed, veiled and mutilated sisters.

And second, put bluntly, why an advanced degree of cognitive dissonance is required to simultaneously endorse same-sex marriage and the multiculturalism that insists Islam is just another inoffensive, garden-variety creed.

Twitter Bans Gay Conservative Milo After Anti-Islam Tweets **UPDATE** Twitter Caves : Lucas Nolan

**UPDATE** Following tremendous backlash, Milo Yiannopoulos’ Twitter account has been restored.

Original story:

Conservative commentator and Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos has been suspended from Twitter ahead of a planned press conference in Orlando, Florida.

The timing of this suspension cannot be ignored. Yiannopoulos was planning to give a press conference today near the Pulse dance club in Orlando, the target of a deadly Muslim terrorist attack that left over 100 dead or wounded. The event is still scheduled to take place, outside the Christ Church Of Orlando at 2pm EDT. Full details for those wishing to attend can be found at the bottom of this article.

It comes as a number of other figures, great and small, have been censored on social media for being too outspoken about the threat of Islam in the wake of the shootings. Islam critic Pamela Geller was suspended on Facebook. A games developer who called for the surveillance of radical mosques was suspended on Twitter. Masses of users discussing the shooting were censored on Reddit. Jim Hoft, aka “The Gateway Pundit,” another gay conservative activists who recently called on LGBT people to acknowledge the homophobia of Islam and “come home to the Republican party,” was suspended on YouTube.

And now Milo Yiannopoulos has been censored on Twitter. The pattern is clear.

“America has to make a very simple choice here. This is not a question of fine distinctions politicians and our media make between Islam and radical Islamist terrorists, really it’s all the same thing, there is a structural problem with Islam, most of them don’t like gays very much. This isn’t news to anyone except our media.” said Milo yesterday on the Todd Shapiro show. Perhaps it is Milos outspoken opinion on this subject that has had him removed from Twitters already restrictive platform.

It is not yet entirely clear why Milo has been suspended but it is unsurprising that this has happened mere days after Milo tweeted his condemnation of Islamic culture and it’s opinions of homosexuals. Yiannopoulos has been highly outspoken in his condemnation of Islam following the Orlando attacks, and recently wrote a viral article slamming the left for “choosing Islam over gays.”

Michael Warren Davis Going Down for Allah

It shouldn’t be so hard to grasp, nor would it be if modern journalists’ first instinct was not to report events as newsroom consensus prefers to frame them. A Muslim kills 49 people while screaming ‘Alahu Akbar’. Obviously, conservatives, gun owners and Islamophobes are to blame.
The only thing that perpetrators of major terrorist attacks have in common is their religion. That, and being total weirdos. Exhibit Z: Omar Mateen, self-proclaimed ISIS loyalist and, quite likely, a closeted homosexual. Neither is particularly unusual in itself, but taken together you get a pretty bizarre mental image: a leery, effeminate chanting “Allahu Akbar” to drown out the hot and guilty fantasies of man-on-man action that plague him. If this was a premiere screening at the Sundance Festival and not the backstory to a major terrorist attack, the character of Mateen might even provoke sympathy. Indeed, by the final scene, we could expect a happy ending, as he reconciled himself with his sexuality. They would probably call it Camelback Mountain.

No consensus has been reached on who exactly is to blame for Mateen’s actions. Republicans, in their predictable and reductive way, have blamed Mateen. Democrats, however, have been more creative. President Obama pointed the finger at Donald Trump, namely his proposed Muslim ban and use of the phrase radical Islam. (We can almost see Mateen, doing “research” on Grindr and polishing his AR-15, fuming: “I’ll show those bigots who doubt that Islam is a peaceful, moderate religion.”) The New York Times blamed Republicans more broadly, opining

While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.

No mention that Mateen was a registered Democrat, but no surprise there?

In many ways, the Orlando shooting was a liberal dream come true. In their unflagging efforts to blame Muslim terrorist attacks on anyone but Muslim terrorists, they came up with the line some months ago that terrorists were “emotionally unstable” or something to that effect, and this death cult which has nothing to do with Islam (how could you even think such a thing?) was merely a convenient excuse to act on violent urges. That worked for a while, until the PC censors came to their senses and realized that blaming terrorism on mental illness is ableist. So they had to bin that line.

The Orlando shooting offered their old horse new shoes. Not only could they shift the blame away from the perpetrators – they could place it on the shoulders of their preferred scapegoat: conservative Republicans. Who is responsible for jihadism? Right-wing Christian patriots! It just rolls right off the tongue, doesn’t it?

That’s too bad, though. Besides being grossly inaccurate, the ableist excuse actually made a lot of sense. Like we said, these terrorists aren’t just fanatical ideologues. Most of them are also really sick puppies.

Father of Paris Attacks Victim Sues Facebook, Twitter and Google Lawsuit accuses companies of permitting Islamic State to recruit members; companies cite policies against extremist material

The father of a young woman killed in the Paris massacre last November is suing Google, Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc., claiming the companies provided “material support” to extremists in violation of the law.

Reynaldo Gonzalez, whose daughter Nohemi was among 130 people killed in Paris, filed the suit on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. The suit said the companies “knowingly permitted” the Islamic State group, referred to in the complaint as ISIS, to recruit members, raise money and spread “extremist propaganda” via their social-media services.

The Gonzalez lawsuit is similar to a case brought against Twitter in January by the widow of a contractor killed in an attack in Jordan. It includes numerous identical passages and screenshots, although the lawyers in the cases are different.

In statements, Facebook and Twitter said Wednesday that the Gonzalez lawsuit is without merit, and all three companies cited their policies against extremist material. Twitter said it has “teams around the world actively investigating reports of rule violations, identifying violating conduct, and working with law enforcement entities when appropriate.”

Facebook said if the company sees “evidence of a threat of imminent harm or a terror attack, we reach out to law enforcement.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Jenny Gross and Jason Douglas:U.K.’s Immigration Unease Animates ‘Brexit’ Vote Surge of new arrivals fuels support for leaving the European Union, as seen in one town that’s been transformed

BOSTON, England—The changing face of this east coast market town helps explain why many want to leave the European Union that Britain has spent the past 43 years helping to shape.

Resident Andrew Fraser said when Britons go to the polls on June 23 to vote on the country’s membership, he will be voting for Britain’s exit, or “Brexit,” because he believes a sharp rise in immigrants to Boston, where he has lived for most of his life, has radically transformed the town’s character.

“That’s not English, that’s not English, that’s not English,” the 57-year-old retiree said, gesturing to various shops around the town. “It’s all gone.”

Unease about immigration has been fueling anti-EU sentiment in the U.K., just as similar concerns have fostered frustration with political elites in the U.S. and across Europe.

In the U.K., rising immigration levels have galvanized debate about the country’s ties to the Continent. Britons uncomfortable about the rise in immigration blame EU membership for allowing unfettered arrivals from Europe. Others see the issue as an indication that Brussels has too much say over Britain in general, that the EU is unaccountable, and that membership, at £8 billion a year ($11.6 billion), is too costly.

A string of recent opinion polls suggest support has swung in favor of those campaigning to leave, with several surveys placing that camp in the lead. (See the results of the polls here.) The “leave” campaign’s focus on the immigration issue appears to be resonating with the public. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Climate Police Blink The AGs prosecuting dissent run up against the First Amendment.

There are few more rewarding sights than a bully scorned, so let’s hear it for the recent laments of Attorneys General Claude Walker (Virgin Islands) and Eric Schneiderman (New York), two ringleaders of the harassment campaign against Exxon and free-market think tanks over climate change.

Consider Mr. Walker’s recent retreat in District of Columbia superior court. In April he issued a sweeping subpoena to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, demanding a decade of emails, policy work and donor names. The goal is to intimidate anyone who raises doubts about climate science or the policy responses.

CEI fought back. It ran a full-page newspaper ad highlighting the Walker-Schneiderman effort to criminalize speech, and it counter-sued the Virgin Islands, demanding sanctions and attorneys fees.

The District of Columbia has a statute to deter what is known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The law exists to curb malicious lawsuits that are designed solely to chill speech, and they put the burden on filers like Mr. Walker to show why their actions are likely to succeed.

Mr. Walker quietly withdrew his subpoena on May 20 (though retaining the right to reinstate it). CEI is pressing ahead with its suit anyway, and in an extraordinary filing on June 2 Mr. Walker essentially said “never mind.” He asked the court to dismiss CEI’s motion for sanctions and fees, writing that the think tank had “wasted enough of [his office’s] and the Court’s limited time and resources with its frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion.”

So having violated CEI’s First Amendment rights, subjected the group to public abuse and legal costs, and threatened its donors, Mr. Walker blames CEI for burdening the courts.

Mr. Schneiderman is also on defense for his subpoena barrage and claim that Exxon is guilty of fraud on grounds that it supposedly hid the truth about global warming from the public. The AG felt compelled to devote an entire speech at a legal conference to justify his actions. He accused Exxon and outside groups of engaging in “First Amendment opportunism,” which he said was a “dangerous new threat” to the state’s ability to protect its citizens. So exercising free speech to question government officials who threaten free speech is a threat to free speech. CONTINUE AT SITE

Are Democrats Soft on Terror? Dan Henninger

In security matters, Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus.
The day after Donald Trump accused Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of refusing to say “radical Islamic terrorism,” President Obama called Mr. Trump’s charge a “distraction” from fighting terrorism. Possibly so, but it wasn’t the only distraction.

Within hours of Omar Mateen verbally dedicating his slaughter of 49 people to Islamic State, terrorism got drowned out by an outpouring of other subjects.

Here, for example, is the New York Times editorializing on the “many factors” that caused the Orlando massacre: “a vicious and virulent homophobia; a failure to identify and intercept those with histories of domestic abuse or threats of violence; a radicalized strain of Islam . . . .” The Times editors then added to this list “one other factor,” which of course is “easy access to guns.”

Hard as it may be to focus, the subject this week is, once again, just terrorism. Back in February after the New Hampshire presidential primaries, something in the exit polls caught my eye. It was that of the four “most important” issues facing the country, Democratic voters put terrorism fourth, at 10%. For Granite State Republicans it was 23%.

At the time, the 10% figure struck me mainly as an intriguing result from a small state early in the primary season. Still, the terrorist attack in San Bernardino had just occurred in December and the horrific Paris massacres a month before.

But that pattern—Democrats ranking terrorism fourth at 10%—held throughout the 2016 primary season. Even in military-minded South Carolina, terrorism registered at 10% with Democrats. For South Carolina Republicans, terrorism was the top issue at 32%.

In April, a study by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations of the primaries’ exit polls noticed the phenomenon: “Terrorism has been named as the top issue on average by one in ten (Democratic) voters, far behind the economy/jobs, income inequality, and health care.”

Does this mean Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus? Yes it does, and the Democrats know it.

A Wednesday Washington Post article titled “A Fight Over Nation’s Values” said: “Both Clinton and Obama were eager to shift the focus away from terrorism and the battle against Islamic State, an area of relative weakness for Democrats.”

The article itself was about an effort by Democrats to transfer the post-Orlando political conversation to Donald Trump’s “values.”

Donald Trump can certainly tweet for himself about his values. But Islamic State and its horrors, which do include San Bernardino and Orlando, began and metastasized while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton presided over national security. Voters may reasonably ask themselves in November: Can the post-Obama Democrats be trusted to do what needs to be done to shut down you-know-who in their homicidal havens across the Middle East? Put differently, why is fighting terrorism recognized as “an area of relative weakness for Democrats”? CONTINUE AT SITE

How Chicago’s Streets Became the Wild West The Ferguson effect, failed city leadership and an ill-advised deal with the ACLU have made the city ever more dangerous. By Heather Mac Donald

Someone was shot in Chicago every 150 minutes during the first five months of 2016. Someone was murdered every 14 hours, and the city saw nearly 1,400 nonfatal shootings and 240 fatalities from gunfire. Over Memorial Day weekend, 69 people were shot, nearly one an hour, topping the previous year’s tally of 53 shootings. The violence is spilling from the Chicago’s gang-infested South and West Sides into the business district downtown. Lake Shore Drive has seen drive-by shootings and robberies.

The growing mayhem is the result of Chicago police officers’ withdrawing from proactive enforcement, making the city a dramatic example of what I have called the Ferguson effect. Since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014, the conceit that American policing is lethally racist has dominated media and political discourse, from the White House on down. Cops in minority neighborhoods in Chicago and other cities have responded by backing away from pedestrian stops and public-order policing; criminals are flourishing in the vacuum.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel warned in October 2015 that officers were going “fetal” as the violence grew. But 2016 produced an even sharper reduction in proactive enforcement. Failures in city leadership after a horrific police shooting, coupled with an ill-considered pact between the American Civil Liberties Union and the police department, are driving that reduction. Residents of Chicago’s high-crime areas are paying the price.

Most victims in the current crime wave are already known to police. Four-fifths of the Memorial Day shooting victims were on the Chicago Police Department’s list of gang members deemed most prone to violence. But innocents are being attacked as well: a 6-year-old girl playing outside her grandmother’s house earlier this month, wounded by gunfire to her back and lungs; a 49-year-old female dispatcher with the city’s 311 call center, killed in May while standing outside a Starbucks a few blocks from police headquarters; a worker driving home at night from her job at FedEx, shot four times in the head while waiting at an intersection, saved by the cellphone at her ear.

Police officers who try to intervene in this disorder often face virulent pushback. “People are a hundred times more likely to resist arrest,” a police officer who has worked a decade and a half on the South Side told me. “People want to fight you; they swear at you. ‘F— the police, we don’t have to listen,’ they say. I haven’t seen this kind of hatred towards the police in my career.”

Antipolice animus is nothing new in Chicago. But the post-Ferguson Black Lives Matter narrative about endemically racist cops has made the street dynamic much worse. A detective told me: “From patrol to investigation, it’s almost an undoable job now. If I get out of my car, the guys get hostile right away.” Bystanders sometimes aggressively interfere, requiring more officers to control the scene.

In March 2015, the ACLU of Illinois accused the Chicago PD of engaging in racially biased stops, locally called “investigatory stops,” because its stop rate did not match population ratios. Blacks were 72% of all stop subjects during a four-month period in 2014, said the ACLU, compared to 9% for whites. By the ACLU’s reasoning, with blacks and whites each making up roughly 32% of the city’s populace, the disparity in stops proves racial profiling.

This by now familiar and ludicrously inadequate benchmarking methodology ignores the incidence of crime. In 2014 blacks in Chicago made up 79% of all known nonfatal shooting suspects, 85% of all known robbery suspects, and 77% of all known murder suspects, according to police-department data. Whites were 1% of known nonfatal shooting suspects in 2014, 2.5% of known robbery suspects, and 5% of known murder suspects, the latter number composed disproportionately of domestic homicides. Whites are nearly absent among violent street criminals—the group that proactive policing aims to deter.

Despite the groundlessness of these racial-bias charges, then-Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and the city’s corporation counsel signed an agreement in August 2015 giving the ACLU oversight of stop activity. The agreement also created an independent monitor. “Why McCarthy agreed to put the ACLU in charge is beyond us,” a homicide detective told me.

On Jan. 1 the department rolled out a new form for documenting investigatory stops to meet ACLU demands. The new form, called a contact card, was two pages long, with 70 fields of information to be filled out. This template dwarfs even arrest reports and takes at least 30 minutes to complete. Every card goes to the ACLU for review.

The arrangement had the intended deterrent effect: Police stops dropped nearly 90% in the first quarter of 2016. Criminals have become emboldened by the police disengagement. “Gangbangers now realize that no one will stop them,” says a former high-ranking official with the department. People who wouldn’t have carried a gun before are now armed, a South Side officer told me. Cops say the solution is straightforward: “If tomorrow we still had to fill out the new forms, but they no longer went to the ACLU, stops would increase,” a detective said. CONTINUE AT SITE