RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/04/stabbed-by-an-islamist-now-silenced-by-the-state/

Earlier this year, activist and blogger Michael Stürzenberger became the victim of an Islamist attack because of his harsh criticism of Islam. Now, six months later, he has been convicted for incitement to hatred and given a fine by a regional court in Hamburg – also because of his harsh criticism of Islam.

In May, a former refugee from Afghanistan targeted and attacked Stürzenberger and six others during a rally organised by Stürzenberger’s campaign group, Pax Europa, in Mannheim, south-west Germany. The incident left one policeman dead, Stürzenberger severely injured – he needed several operations on his face and knee – and a nation in shock.

Stürzenberger’s incitement conviction is not directly related to the incidents in Mannheim. Instead, it relates to statements he made at a rally in Hamburg in 2020. He was originally found guilty of incitement to hatred and given a six-month prison sentence at a Hamburg court in September 2022, but appealed the conviction. Last month the court upheld the original verdict, but reduced his sentence to a fine of €3,600.

According to reports, his punishment was reduced because he had since become a victim of an assassination attempt. Another mitigating factor was that he had not given any public speeches since the Mannheim attack.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/03/the-syrian-tragedy-continues/

The terrible 13-years-long conflict in Syria has been mainly framed as a civil war between the government of Bashar al-Assad and domestic opponents. The sight of jihadist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) capturing villages and towns in north-west Syria, before advancing on and taking the city of Aleppo on Friday, has largely been interpreted through this civil-war lens – as the reignition of a conflict between ‘rebel’ groups and ‘regime’ or ‘government’ forces.

This, though, is to tell only part of the story. Not just of the latest direct challenge to Assad’s hollow rule, but also of Syria’s long-standing descent into violent instability. (For one thing, ‘rebels’ seems like an oddly anodyne way to describe the vicious Islamists of HTS.)

Throughout this long conflict, there have certainly been domestic factors involved, chief among which is the illegitimacy and chronic lack of authority of Assad’s de facto, tin-pot dictatorship. This weakness gave rise to the initial popular uprisings against him in 2011. But since that initial eruption of anti-Assad protest during the Arab Spring, this has ceased to be a conflict determined by social, political forces internal to Syria itself.

In truth, the conflict in Syria has long since been shaped and fuelled by its internationalisation. Shortly after the moment in 2011 when the Arab Spring called the very viability of Assad’s government into question, global and regional hegemons crowded into the ensuing struggle, vying for influence and power. By 2012, NATO allies Turkey and America, with then secretary of state Hillary Clinton leading the charge, were simultaneously demanding Assad step down while backing various anti-government militias – some of which would turn out to be violent jihadists. On the other side, Russia and Iran attempted to shore up Assad’s crumbling regime, providing various forms of military support.

By the mid-2010s, Syria had been torn apart. To all intents and purposes, it had ceased to be a nation. It had become a patchwork of territories, each partially controlled by competing factions, which in turn were backed by competing international forces. There were the US-backed Kurdish fighters in the east, who were defending themselves against the insurgent jihadists while pursuing their own national ambitions. There were the Turkey-sponsored militias in the north. And there was the Russia-bolstered, Iran-aided government of Assad himself in the west. In the lawless chaos, Islamist militias, with backing from all around the region, flourished.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21178/syria-jihadist-terror-turkey

The government of Turkey has supported jihadists in Syria since the beginning of the civil war in 2011. Turkey has allowed Islamists to use the Turkish territory to cross the border to Syria to join terrorist organizations there.

Turkey has been targeting the US allies against ISIS through military incursions such as the 2018 “Operation Olive Branch” and 2019 “Operation Peace Spring.”

In June 2020, HTS began replacing the Syrian pound with the Turkish lira, indexing the prices of goods to the lira. The Turkish government, through its massive economic support to the group, thereby became a lifeline for the jihadist HTS.

The capture of Aleppo by Turkey-backed, Al-Qaeda-affiliated forces is terrifying news for Kurds, Yazidis, Christians and everyone else whom jihadists perceive as their prey. If one is celebrating the advance of these Islamists invading parts of Syria, one is celebrating the advance of bloodthirsty jihadists who want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would happily slaughter anyone who stood in their way.

Turkey is unleashing another gruesome jihad in Syria.

On November 27, jihadist terror groups — led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Organization for the Liberation of the Levant; HTS) — launched a coordinated attack on Aleppo Governorate in northwestern Syria, cut off the main highway from Damascus to Aleppo, captured and killed dozens of Syrian Army soldiers, promised mass executions and beheadings “in front of TV cameras,” and seized control of a military base and several villages.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/29/this-is-a-truly-dark-day-for-our-nation/

For me, the grimmest thing about today’s ‘assisted dying’ debate in the House of Commons was when MPs emitted an audible groan upon hearing about Canada’s state-sanctioned killing of the wretched. It was the Conservative MP Danny Kruger who had the temerity to mention these unfortunates put to death by their own government. He referred to ‘medics’ in Canada, who are ‘specialists in assisted death’, who ‘personally kill hundreds of patients a year’. A collective whine shook the chamber as MPs were confronted with the truth of what they were voting for: the right of state-approved bodies to slay certain members of the public. ‘If honourable members have a difficulty with the language’, Kruger shot back, ‘then I wonder what they’re doing here’.

The groan spoke volumes. With their eye-rolling, our lawmakers exposed how utterly out of touch they are with the strife of the sick and poor who have indeed been killed – yes, killed – in Canada. They have so uncritically bought into the shadowy, euphemistic lingo about a ‘right to die’ that they appear to have forgotten that it involves the literal killing of a person on the basis that his or her life, in the state’s eyes, is miserable and ludicrous. Under Canada’s regime of death, this has included killing people who are not even terminally ill but who simply have ‘unmet social needs’, such as a lack of housing or of future prospects. Sorry for boring you by mentioning that poor people are being put to death under the very banner of ‘assisted dying’ you just pushed through the Commons.

The moan of the MPs was a sign of what was to come: following what was by all accounts a thin debate, MPs voted by 330 to 275 in favour of the bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. After just five hours – shorter than the debates some of us have with mates in the pub – a majority of MPs said ‘aye’ to Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This doesn’t mean the bill will become law. There will be months of parliamentary scrutiny. But it does mean the bill has cleared a major hurdle. It does mean we’re on the road to a new, misnamed ‘health’ regime in which terminally ill adults expected to die within six months will be permitted to seek the state’s assistance in hurrying them off this mortal coil. It does mean we’re a step closer to people being able to apply for and receive the state’s assistance in taking their own lives.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21163/china-russia-north-korea-fracture

The Russia-North Korea-China relationship is not an equilateral triangle but an evolving alliance with conflicting interests, and reportedly beginning to show signs of fracture and lack of trust.

One report suggests that, ultimately, North Korea may dispatch 100,000 troops to Russia.

China nevertheless views Russia as principally a source of oil and raw materials. The Kremlin might hope to rejuvenate itself by re-asserting its failing primacy in Central Asia amidst the independent post-Soviet countries.

The Russia-North Korea-China relationship is not an equilateral triangle but an evolving alliance with conflicting interests, and reportedly beginning to show signs of fracture and lack of trust.

Now that North Korean troops have joined Russian forces in fighting a democratic country, Ukraine, the global ramifications of this East-West coalitional warfare have darkened. An alliance of aggressive dictatorships are directly confronting the free West.

Western intelligence agencies have reported that North Korea has deployed about 3,000 troops in the Kursk region of Russia, now occupied by Ukraine. North Korea has reportedly dispatched an additional 7,000 troops to Russia.

The deployment of these North Korean troops is supposedly justified by Moscow and Pyongyang through the joint Russia-North Korea Defense Treaty, signed on June 19, 2024 and ratified this month, stipulating that each signatory will come to the military assistance of the other if under attack by a third country.

The increased military-to-military links between North Korea and Russia also have regional ramifications, and China appears to have indicated to Moscow that the once heralded Sino-Russian “No Limits Alliance” may have some limits, after all.