RUTHFULLY YOURS

Remember this oily charmer…”oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way around the floor”…and apologist for the nation that financed and enabled 15 of the 9/11 terrorists….rsk

Mr. Al-Jubeir is the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia.

Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting John Adams, who famously said: “Facts are stubborn things.” So when Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif made public pronouncements about fighting extremism, the facts show that his comments are ironic at best and little more than insincere propaganda.

The fact is that Iran is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism, with government officials directly responsible for numerous terrorist attacks since 1979. These include suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport; the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996; attacks against more than a dozen embassies in Iran, including those of Britain, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia; and the assassination of diplomats around the world, to name a few examples.

Nor can one get around the fact that Iran uses terrorism to advance its aggressive policies. Iran cannot talk about fighting extremism while its leaders, Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard continue to fund, train, arm and facilitate acts of terrorism.
If Iran wants to demonstrate sincerity in contributing to the global war on terrorism, it could have begun by handing over al Qaeda leaders who have enjoyed sanctuary in Iran. These have included Osama bin Laden’s son, Saad, and al Qaeda’s chief of operations, Saif al-Adel, along with numerous other operatives guilty of attacks against Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and other targets. It is a fact that Saif al-Adel placed a call from Iran in May 2003 giving orders for the Riyadh bombings that claimed more than 30 lives, including eight Americans. Yet he still benefits from Iranian protection.

Iran could also stop funding terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, whose secretary-general recently boasted that his organization gets 100% of its funding from Iran. Iran could stop producing and distributing improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which have killed or injured thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Iran could halt supplying weapons to terrorists and sectarian militias in the region who seek to replace legitimate governments with Iranian puppets.

In Syria, the blood of the more than 500,000 people slaughtered by the regime of Bashar al-Assad stains the hands of Iran, which sent forces—both regular troops and nonstate actors—to prop up the Syrian regime. Iranian leaders have said publicly that if not for their efforts, Assad would have fallen from power. CONTINUE AT SITE

As the terror attacks transpired over the weekend in NYC, New Jersey and Minnesota, reports came in that the man who stabbed eight people at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, was screaming “Allahu Akbar” and asking his victims if they were Muslim.

In response to these developments, the Glazov Gang is running its special episode The Real Meaning of ‘Allahu Akbar’ — with Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of Frontpage’s blog, The Point.

Daniel explained why you should be very suspicious of the translation the media provides of ‘Allahu Akbar’ after every Jihadi attack.

Don’t miss it!

And don’t miss the special Mark Christian Moment with Dr. Mark Christian, in which the President of the Global Faith Institutediscussed Hillary’s Islamization of America, focusing on Huma Abedin, the Muslim Brotherhood and other threatening connections:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/711641/Teen-tied-up-gagged-three-men-gang-rape-Eiffel-Tower

The 19-year-old French girl was lured to the monument on the proviso of a ‘date’ set up through Facebook.

She responded to messages from who she thought was a 17-year-old Tunisian boy and initially met him close to her home in the Paris suburbs.

Last Sunday evening she turned up for another date where she expected to have a picnic with the boy at the Champs des Mars, the park where the Eiffel Tower is, and was attacked.

A source close to the case, said: “It was a warm night, and she expected to eat strawberries and grapes, and to drink Coke, but then the attack took place.”

The woman was dragged under a bush behind where a blanket had been laid out.

She was then assaulted by three men who then gagged, beat her up and tied her up.

The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is said to have recently run away from her mother’s home in the Paris suburbs.

She was only found when a couple who were jogging early on Monday morning heard the victim making a muffled sobbing noise.

They raised the alarm after finding her in deep shock, naked and crying.

The French presidential hopeful blasted “arrogant” eco-warriors at a meeting of business leaders this week, claiming human industry was not the cause of climate change.

He said: “The climate has been changing for four billion years. “The Sahara has become a desert, and it isn’t because of industry.“You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”

Mr Sarkozy has previously insisted France must stop African migrants coming to Europe if their sole reason for doing so is because their homeland is being turned into desert.

But the 61-year-old, who has vowed to take a tough line on extremism ahead of the country’s presidential election next year, caused outrage from his main rivals.

Fellow contender for the Presidency, Alain Juppé, said he was “convinced that human activity bears a heavy share of responsibility in climate change”.

He added: “Denying it is denying reality.”

The controversial comments come as the former president from 2007 to 2012 lashed out over the European migrant crisis, claiming France is “not the gatekeeper” of England.

During live television debate on France 2 television, he said: “Is that we can accommodate all those who want to come? My answer is no.

And in a blow to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her open-door migrant policy, Mr Sarkozy called for a “limit” on migrants entering Europe.

He added: “We have no jobs, we do not have the means.

“There must be a limit.”

There is hardly any Islamist group out there which does not expressly strive for the restoration of the caliphate. Here’s why.

What do Islamist groups want and what are their aims? Most Westerners know that groups like ISIS are in some way, shape, or form related to Islam. Thanks to the media, they also associate, correctly, Islamist groups like ISIS and al-Qā’ida with violence. Although average Americans may be told by the media how these groups are fundamentally motivated by political and economic grievances, no more than a superficial spotlight is usually cast on their religious ideology and goals.

However, one thing that your average American probably knows is that groups like ISIS are working to establish an Islamic “caliphate.” Images of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, speaking at the Grand Mosque of Al-Nurī in Mosul are likely to be conjured up.

But what exactly is a caliphate? And why do militant Islamist groups like ISIS, al-Qā’ida, Boko Harām, Jabhat al-Nusra, and even less overtly militant Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, want to establish a caliphate? And how important is the caliphate in the overall thought of Islamists? Is it perceived to be a necessary tenet of Islam? Let’s take a look.
What is a Caliphate? Who is a Caliph?

Etymologically, the English word “caliphate” is a loanword of the Arabic term khilāfa. The word khilāfa is derived from the triliteral root kh-l-f (خلف), meaning “to succeed” or to “come after.”[1] Khilāfa (خلافة) denotes a caliphate, and is obviously a noun derived from the verbal root kh-l-f; furthermore, the (slightly different) word ‘khalīfa‘(خليفة) denotes a caliph and is an active participle meaning one who succeeds or comes after another.

The term khalīfa (خَلِيفَةً) occurs in the Qur’ān nine times and is always used by the Qur’ān to denote a successor or viceregent (e.g., “Oh David, we have made you a khalīfa upon the Earth”; Q 38:26). However, there is nothing in the Qur’ān about a khalīfa being a present ruler ruling over the believers or the Islamic umma(community). This specific application of the khalīfa-concept was clearly one that developed after the death of Muḥammad in 632 A.D.

A caliphate is essentially a state where an Islamic ruler or Caliph rules the Muslim umma. That is, a caliphate is an essentially theocratic and Islamic conception of government. It is important to emphasize that the idea of a caliphate is an exclusively Islamic notion. There is no such thing as a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist caliphate. Every caliphate is by definition an Islamic one, and every caliph is or should be a Muslim, as we will see later on.

On September 11, 2016, Raphael Medoff of JNS.org penned a piece, “Denis Ross: If Elected Again, Clinton Should Seek More Israeli Concessions.” One is forced to wonder if a background study of Dennis Ross might help in comprehending how he arrives at this thought.

Dennis Ross is known as one who calculates that public pressure would move the parties, Palestinians and Israelis . He figures that in the Middle East, private negotiations work better. He has thrived under presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton, both Bushes and Barak Obama. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Ross worked for Jim Baker, the same individual who is credited with saying, F—– the Jews, they didn’t vote for us anyway.”

In 1989, Ross and Miller——along with an Orthodox Jewish Foreign Service officer, Daniel Kurtzer of PLO recognition fame and later to become US Ambassador to Egypt and subsequently US Ambassador to Israel—–were accused of being “self-hating Jews. They had drafted a Baker speech which rocked the American Jewish community. requesting Israel’s leaders to renounce “the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel.” Apparently, an aide to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir referred to them as “Baker’s Jew boys.”

Now, it is known that Ross was absolutely dedicated to the peace process more so than anything else and obviously still is. Interesting, what in former times was entitled “Land for Peace” became “The Two State Solution”. Yet another questionable euphemism!

At the Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Survive conference which gave rise to Medoff’s article, Ross asserted that “even though negotiations with the Palestinian Authority won’t work now”, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should take steps of his own. “He should at a minimum announce an official policy that there will be no further Israeli construction east of the security barrier.”

When one engages the historical record from the 1979 Camp David Accords to the present day, one can only find many concessions presented by Israel accompanied by dismissal of commitments made by the Palestinians. More than that, in every case the Palestinian reaction has been inhuman and cruel violence. What Israel has been able to achieve with Egypt and Jordan, has not been possible with the Palestinians. Ross surely knows this since his involvement in the overall process dates back to the 1st George Bush.

Professor Gerald Steinberg is of the opinion that Ross and his colleagues “in the excitement of the diplomatic activity closed their eyes to the disconnect between myth and reality,” He observes that while Ross finally recognized Arab rejectionisim of Israel’s existence had not changed, the diplomat in him would not let go. Writing in 2004, Steinberg insightfully notes that process without substance is untenable and another round of good intentions will end again in the hell of suicide bombings. Today, while in fact, suicide bombings have been replaced by knifing and weaponry, the principle remains unaltered.

A full iteration on Israeli concessions is necessary to answer the charge of Dennis Ross. Any discussion on [Israeli] concessions has to consider, as a minimum, The 1979 Camp David Accords, The 1991 Madrid Conference, The 1993 Oslo Accords, The 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty, The Taba Agreement [Oslo11], The 1997 Hebron Agreement, 1998 Wye River Memorandum, 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit, 20o1 Taba Conference and 2005 Gaza Disengagement.

What distinguished the Camp David Accords and the Jordanian -Israeli Peace treaty from the rest was that Israel was negotiating with nation states viz., Egypt and Jordan. In the case of the former, Israel returned 90% of the conquered territory and made provision for an autonomous entity for the Palestinians. In the case of Jordan, it regained its entire sovereignty. Gaza and Judea and Samaria, previously illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively were retained by Israel. Obviously, Ross does not consider land returned in a defensive war a concession.