Washington Mall gunman Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, reblogged this on his Tumblr.
Subhan Allah means Glory to Allah, the Islamic deity. Jannah is paradise. Ummah is the Islamic nation.
Russia and the West are fighting to decide whether Syria will be run by Sunni Islamists backed by Saudi Arabia or Shiite Islamists backed by Iran. This insane civil war has burned up countless lives, not to mention plenty of dollars, rubles, euros and pounds. The only certain winners of this war, once the dust has settled, will chant “Allahu Akbar” and call for the death of the infidels.
Sadly this is nothing new. Russia got the PLO started before Bill Clinton decided to become its sugar daddy. Smuggling weapons to the Mujahedeen to fight the Russians got us into Afghanistan. Except these days it’s the Russians who, through the Iranians, are funneling weapons to the locals to fight us. Between us and the Russians, we’ve put wagonloads of weapons into the hands of Jihadis in Iraq and Syria. The consequences will be felt in Moscow, New York, London and Paris.
The West and the Warsaw Pact countries used to fuel foreign wars. These days the war is at home.
Russia and the NATO countries suffer from low birth rates and rising Muslim demographics, but are in a senseless competition to determine which emergent Caliphate will be able to draw its borders in territories it can’t populate. It’s a battle over a pittance taking place in a burning building.
Moscow has around 2 million Muslims. London has over 1 million. Both sides are at risk of losing their own capital cities to real invasions. The EU and Putin’s Eurasian dreams are both built on the Roman notion that the barbarians can be integrated and will make good foot soldiers and laborers.
France’s President Hollande has called for the creation of an “Islam of France”. Putin suggests that the Russian Orthodox Church has more in common with Islam than Catholicism. Obama preaches that, “Islam has always been part of America”. But such efforts at integration will always fail.
The popular European excuse is that Islamic terrorism represents a failure to integrate the terrorist. Islamic terrorism is indeed caused by a failure to integrate. The mistake is assuming that integration on a civilizational scale is possible. It’s not. You can integrate a few people. You can’t integrate a civilization.
Abbas and Fatah leaders in Ramallah claim that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (the “Arab Quartet”) are using and promoting Abbas’s rival, Mohamed Dahlan, in order to facilitate their mission of rapprochement with Israel.
Many Palestinians were surprised to see veteran Palestinian official Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister and one of the architects of the Oslo Accord, come out in favor of the Arab plan, which basically envisions ousting Abbas from power.
This, and not Israeli policy, is Abbas’s true nightmare. After all, he knows that without Israel’s presence in the West Bank, his regime would have long fallen into the hands of Hamas or even his political rivals in Fatah.
The “Arab Quartet” plan shows that some Arab countries are indeed fed up with Abbas’s failure to lead his people towards a better life. These states, which have long been politically and financially supportive of the Palestinians, have had enough of Abbas’s efforts to secure unending power — at the direct cost of the well-being of his people.
In his speech last week before the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas trotted out his usual charges against Israel, citing “collective punishment,” “house demolitions,” “extrajudicial executions” and “ethnic cleansing.” However, Abbas’s thoughts seem to be elsewhere these days. He is facing a new challenge from unexpected parties, namely several Arab countries that have come together to demand that he reform his ruling Fatah faction and pave the way for the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership.
Yet this was not included in the UN speech. Indeed, why would Abbas share with world leaders that his Arab brothers are pressuring him to introduce major reforms in Fatah and end a decade-long power struggle with Hamas that has resulted in the creation of two separate Palestinian entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Abbas, his aides admit, is today more worried about the “Arab meddling” in the internal affairs of the Palestinians than he is about “collective punishment” or “settlement activities.” In fact, he is so worried that he recently lashed out at those Arab countries that have launched an initiative to “re-arrange the Palestinian home from within” and bring about changes in the Palestinian political scene.
Why has Onfray has become so popular among the French foreign fighters? Journalist David Thomson, a specialist in jihadi movements, explained that “Onfray is translated into Arabic and shared on all pro-Isis sites”.
Onfray recognizes that we are at war. But this war, to him, was was started by George W. Bush. He “forgets” that there were 3,000 American deaths on September 11, 2001. If you remind him that “Isis kills innocent people”, the philosopher will reply: “We have also killed innocent people”. It is the perfect moral equality between Isis and the West. Barbarians against barbarians! With his moral relativism, Onfray opens the door to Islamist cutthroats.
The French intellectual Thomas Piketty, after the massacres in Paris, pointed at “inequality” as the root of Isis’ success. Another well known German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk, claimed that the September 11 attacks were attacks have been just “small incidents”.
Someone should have explained to him that all the terrorists were well integrated in the French and Belgian democracies, and living with welfare subsidies.
Famous representatives of European culture… also embraced Adolf Hitler’s dream. Their heirs now justify Jihad as the ultimate punishment for Western freedoms and democracy.
After September 11, 2001, the cream of European intellectuals immediately started to find justifications for Jihad. They evidently were fascinated by the Kalashnikov, “the weapon of the poor”. For them, what we had seen in New York was a chimera, an illusion. The mass killings were supposedly the suicide of the capitalist democracy and terrorism was the wrath of the unemployed, the disperate weapon of a lumpenproletariat offended by the arrogance of Western globalization. These intellectuals have sown seeds of despair in a large Western echo-chamber. From 9/11 to the recent massacres on European soil, the murdered Westerners were just the collateral victims in a war between “the system” and the damned of the earth, which only claim a place at the table.
One of these intellectuals is Michel Onfray. It is a while since we heard the expression: “Useful idiot”. It was cynically invented by Marshal Tito to designate Western sympathizers who justified the horrors of Communism. The French magazine L’Express used it for Onfray: “The useful idiot of Islamism”.
Recently in Iraq, 19 Yazidi girls were placed in iron cages and burned alive in front of a crowd of hundreds, for refusing to copulate with jihadis.
“Religious minority women under IS [Islamic State] control are often repeatedly sold from jihadi to jihadi. Once militants get tired of raping and abusing one particular girl, they usually sell them off to one of their militant buddies so they can rape and abuse them at their own pleasure.” — Samuel Smith, The Christian Post.
After their children were abducted by the Islamic State, a couple answered their door to find the body parts of their daughters and a video of them being tortured and raped.
“Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.” — Local residents, Pakistan.
Islamic law, always harsh, is still harsher for women. According to the Koran, men have “authority” over women and may beat them if they are “disobedient” (4:34). According to Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, women are less intelligent than men — two women are needed to equal one man’s testimony — and the majority of hell’s population is made up of women, who are likened to donkeys and dogs in their ability to distract a man from his prayer and thereby annul it.
What, then, is Islam’s view of women who are “infidels”? They are at best “meant for one thing, the pleasure of the Muslim man,” as one Muslim told a group of young Christian girls in Pakistan before terrorizing and murdering one. In the Koran, (see 4:24), non-Muslim women seized in a jihad can be bought and sold as sex slaves for Muslim men, as the Islamic State has been doing.
Emily Fuentes, communications director for Open Doors, a human rights organization that advocates for persecuted Christians, said:
Unfortunately, more and more women are the target of [Muslim] terrorist groups. There are numerous international incidents of women being kidnapped, raped, and forced to convert from Christianity to Islam by radical extremist groups…. Many are also sold on the open market. This brutality is not only occurring in the Middle East but in Africa and in many other places. In many of these countries, women are subject to persecution because they are considered second-class citizens because of their gender. As minorities in both gender and faith, Christian women face double the persecution. Although we don’t have an exact number, we know that millions of women are being persecuted…. In these Muslim-dominated countries, Christian women are systematically deprived of their freedom to live and are denied basic human necessities.
Syria and its Russian allies pressed an assault on Aleppo amid what the United Nations called the most intense bombing in years of warfare there, and residents said hundreds of civilians have been killed since a cease-fire fell apart last week.
The surge in deaths came as a spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon over the weekend cited reports of “bunker buster bombs.” The bombs have left large craters in the rebel-held part of the divided city, Aleppo residents said, and caused shock waves felt blocks away from the point of impact.
The U.N. Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, told the Security Council on Sunday that he had seen videos and pictures of incendiary bombs “that create fireballs of such intensity that they light up the pitch darkness in eastern Aleppo, as though it was actually daylight.”
Rebels and opposition leaders blamed Russia, Syria’s key ally, for the bunker-buster bombs. The Russian Defense Ministry didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The first time one struck, everyone thought there was an earthquake,” said Muhammad al-Zein, who helps oversee hospitals in the rebel-held part of Aleppo. “But the next day another one hit and we realized it was not an earthquake.”
Much of the death toll came in the four days since Thursday when the Syrian regime announced the start of a new offensive against Aleppo’s rebel-controlled neighborhoods.
President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to retake all of Aleppo and the offensive was the latest indication that he aims to win the war militarily despite repeated efforts by the U.S. and Russia to reach a lasting cease-fire and a diplomatic solution. Syrian state media reported that the army on Saturday seized control of an area north of Aleppo city called Handarat Camp. Within hours, rebels said they had retaken the territory.
The U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting on Sunday over the bombardment of Aleppo. The meeting, which lasted about three hours, was called jointly by the U.S., France and the U.K. Ambassadors of all three countries walked out when Syria’s representative began speaking. CONTINUE AT SITE
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Hilary Clinton’s refugee plan is an open invitation for Radical Islam’s unyielding nature to run roughshod over American culture.
It’s by now clear that at least some the perpetrators of last weekend’s spate of attacks harbored extremist views and sought inspiration in the work of Islamic State and al Qaeda (ISIS praised the Minnesota stabber, and the New York bombing suspect traveled to jihadi hotbeds in Afghanistan and Pakistan).
This is a clarifying reminder that the presidential election must be a referendum on Hilary Clinton’s failed approach to the struggle of radical Islam, and specifically a pressing matter at hand: her plan to admit 65,000 Syrian refugees — a 550 percent increase from the 10,000 Syrian refugees supported by the Obama administration.
It pains us greatly to see the crush of humanity fleeing the violence engulfing the Middle East. We’re also concerned about the security and stability of key American allies. Germany — a country roughly half the size of Texas — has already taken in some 1 million asylum seekers. America must find ways to help. The Clinton proposal, however, is naive and dangerous.
Of course, President Obama bears some responsibility for the turmoil. Some of this started with his hasty withdrawal from the region. It spread with Secretary Clinton’s refusal to punish the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and her failure to intervene effectively in the subsequent collapse of that country. Filling the vacuum, terrorists have targeted ethnic and religious minorities they consider apostates, destroyed archaeological and sacred religious sites, and advanced a form of Islam whose cruelty knows no bounds.
So what do about refugees?
It’s arguably harder in Europe than in the United States. From an Islamist perspective, immigration has become a mechanism to transform a national entity into a political minority through territorial displacement and the undermining of values — guerrilla warfare by another name. Where Muslim immigrant communities have settled, an increasing number — France and Britain immediately come to mind — have insisted on enacting Islamic customs, legislation and social behavior. Whether grown organically or by design, parallel societies have taken hold — often resulting in a sense of helplessness for the indigenous population, especially women.
America’s tradition has been a different one. Its track record of assimilation has been strong, and the numbers of refugees presently being discussed is small. But none of this should speak against vigilance, wisdom and common sense.
This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Nonie Darwish Moment with Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.
Nonie discusses Why Leftists Fear ‘Law And Order’ Talk More Than Terror, unveiling the destructive leftist agenda vis-à-vis Sharia.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch the special edition of The Glazov Gang that presented the Lejla Colak Moment with Lejla Colak, a brave Bosnian journalist who survived Islam.
Lejla discussed My Escape From Islam’s Rape and Death Sentence and sent her gratitude to Anni Cyrus and all others for snatching her out of the hell that Sharia’s guardians had planned for her.
The president once noted that slavery’s legacy was a part of America’s DNA. The genius of his grievance is that it’s inextinguishable, as in no possibility of reconciliation and definitive settlement. ‘White privilege’ is forever—or, at any rate, as long as a social-justice warrior finds it useful.
Barack Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign, was presented to the people of the United States—and, more broadly, to the people of the world—as the candidate best suited to play the role of unifier. President George W. Bush had been the Great Divider but now the time had come for everyone to put those discordant days behind us and embrace the one we had been waiting for, and so begin an era of repair and restoration. A sizeable proportion of Americans continue to approve of President Obama—close to 50 per cent in some polls—and yet the blistering populist campaigns pursued by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (and, in a sense, Ted Cruz) throughout the current presidential campaign season suggest that his time in office has increased discord in the country.
Barack Obama positioning himself as the Healer-in-Chief was always a problematic notion. Edward Klein’s The Amateur (2012) is vitriolic in tone and underestimates Obama’s political savvy, and yet his rationalisation of Obama’s original popular appeal—masterminded by political consultant David Axelrod—remains relevant:
[Axelrod] performed a brilliant piece of political legerdemain … He devised a narrative for Obama in which the candidate was presented as a black man who would heal America, not divide it, a moderate non-partisan who would rescue America, not threaten it.
Candidate Obama, the politician with the most radical voting record in the US Senate, could be trusted by mainstream America to bring the nation together.
President Obama has failed as national peacemaker because he is not a “centrist” or mediator. The provenance of his systematic worldview can be found in the thinkers of the New Left, from Frank Marshall Davis and Edward Said to Jeremiah Wright. The Reverend Wright’s “God damn America!” outburst encapsulates the New Left’s aversion to the fundamentals of America’s capitalist democracy. America is not to be healed so much as reconfigured. The great ideological fissure in the United States, then, is between their so-called libertarian-socialism—the “spirit of 1968” as Dinesh D’Souza has tagged it—and a revolution with far deeper roots: the “spirit of 1776”.
Edward Klein’s insight is only one explanation for why so many Americans failed to grasp the sharp nature of Barack Obama’s ideology. Not the least of these is that the forty-fourth president long ago took a leaf out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1971). President Obama, in short, eschews the pitfalls of the “rhetorical radical”. He avoids the undisguised anger and belligerence common to many activists and, in its place, adopts the public persona of what Alinsky called the “radical realist”. This could be summed up in four words: Don’t frighten the horses. Thus, Barack Obama typically expresses himself with the poise and equanimity of a venerable conciliator, and yet a more contentious outlook is invariably at work.
We could start with the Dallas shootings. On July 7, 2016, Michael Xavier Johnson ambushed and shot police officers, murdering five and injuring nine others. The police officers were on duty to ensure the security at a Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstration in the city. Dallas Police Chief David Brown disclosed that Johnson—killed near the scene of his crime—had been a follower of the BLM movement and had “stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers”. The chief organiser of this particular BLM protest, the Reverend Jeff Hood, did acknowledge that, with the benefit of hindsight, he might have chosen a different rallying call from “God damn White America!” to lead off the day’s march. Nevertheless, the BLM leadership team, not surprisingly, disavowed any culpability for the assassination of the police officers. Not even Quanell X’s New Black Panther Party wanted to take responsibility for Dallas. Quanell X acknowledged that Johnson had once been a member of his organisation but added that he was subsequently expelled for violating the party’s “chain of command” and advocating the acquisition of more weapons. All of this, of course, might be disingenuous but so was Barack Obama’s response.
Should he claim the White House on November 8, the US will reject the obligations of the Paris climate accord. Like him or not in regard to other of his stated goals and policies, a ferocious disdain for the economy-hobbling rent-seekers of Big Wind and the like is a powerful recommendation.
Unlike previous presidents, Barack Obama has no intention of going quietly into the night. His approval ratings remain above 50% and he’s using that clout to make the Paris climate agreement a key element of his perceived “legacy”, pursuing that goal with threats and blandishments.
Under the Paris pact, most developed countries (including Australia) have agreed to reduce their emissions by 26-28% under Intended National Determined Contributions (INDC), ostensibly to limit global temperature increases to 2°C. Most developing countries have only nominal emission-reduction requirements, though even these have proven too great to achieve for at least one of them, the Philippines[1], where President Duterte has rejected the soft targets agreed to by his predecessor.
The US and China have ratified the Paris agreement, the Obama Administration having bi-passed Congress to do so — a path made available because US negotiators stipulated that the language of the accord be couched so that, technically, it is not a treaty imposing binding obligations[2]. While ratification as far as China is concerned represents little more than agreeing to business as usual, at least until 2030, the US is a very serious supporter of emission reductions. Its taxpayers are very generous donors and supporters of the renewables lobby, having spent $176 billion on wind, solar and other green schemes [3]. The Obama Administration also has done what it can to inhibit shale developments and other innovative gas/oil extraction methods, simultaneously threatening new coal-power developments with prohibitive regulatory costs.
For each country’s INDC to come into force under the Paris Climate agreement, 55 signatories must ratify it — and those need to represent 55% or more of all emissions. As things stand, 60 countries, accounting for 48% of global emissions (China and the US representing almost all of this), have ratified. Additional countries (including Japan, Australia and Canada) are expected to do likewise this calendar year, lifting the emission levels above the 55% trigger[4]. The race is on because, although presidential contender Hillary Clinton would retain the Obama policy, Donald Trump thinks global warming is overstated at best and, as he has also described it, “a hoax”. Whatever his precise view, Trump has indicated his intention to dismantle the machinery Obama has put in place to reduce US emissions[5].
The EU is not expected to get its act together to ratify this year. The matter did not even figure in the recent Bratislava Declaration following the meeting of the 27 heads of government[6].
However, British PM Teresa May says the UK (which represents 2% of global emissions) will ratify this year[7]. Doubtless the UK will have received some comfort from Obama/Clinton regarding a free-trade treaty in return for this and, by Number Ten’s reckoning, ratification will not prejudice Britain’s case if Trump emerges victorious from the first Tuesday in November. The UK, still being technically part of the EU, may well not lodge a separate ratification by December. The goal of global emission reductions, irrespective of the need for them, is totally unachievable without the near unanimity of all nations — and developing countries will not undertake abatement policies.
