RUTHFULLY YOURS

The true number of child marriages in Germany is believed to be much higher than the official statistics suggest because many are being concealed.

In May, an appeals court in Bamberg recognized the marriage of a 15-year-old Syrian girl to her 21-year-old cousin. The ruling effectively legalized Sharia child marriages in Germany.

“Religious or cultural justifications obscure the simple fact that older, perverse men are abusing young girls.” — Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.

“This is not a question of tolerance and openness, but a question of the protection of children and minors. We therefore need a clear rule: Assessing the marriageable age of a person … will in the future always be determined by German law.” — Bavarian Justice Minister Winfried Bausback.

German authorities are debating the contours of a new law that would crack down on child marriages after it emerged that some 1,500 underage brides are now living in the country.

The married minors are among the more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who entered Germany in 2015.

The German Interior Ministry, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, recently revealed that 1,475 married children are known to be living in Germany as of July 31, 2016 — including 361 children who are under the age of 14.

Most of the married children are from Syria (664), Afghanistan (157) and Iraq (100). Nearly 80% (1,152) are girls. The true number of child marriages in Germany is believed to be much than the official statistics suggest because many are being concealed.

“You [Iranian officials] will be in the future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions] committed by you.” — Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Intriguingly, all those people whom Montazeri is addressing and warning in the audio, currently appear to enjoy high positions.

Iran’s massacre of more than 30,000 people was recently disclosed by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri’s son, Ahmad, a moderate cleric, who posted a confidential audio of his father on his website but was ordered by Iran’s intelligence service to remove it.

Born in Esfahan, Iran, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is a human rights activist, an Islamic theologian, and was the designated successor to the Islamic revolution’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, until the very last moments of Khomeini’s life. His pictures were posted next to Khomeini’s in the streets.

In the recording, Montazeri states:

“You [Iranian officials] will be in the future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions] committed by you.”

While some international human rights organizations, the Obama Administration and the United Nations appear to have turned a blind eye this massacre and other crimes against humanity, several officials have taken steps. A U.S. House of Representatives Resolution condemning the massacres and other executions was introduced by the House Homeland Security Chair, Mike McCaul, and cosponsored by Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, and Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions. The resolution was introduced when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who heads a government that is ranked number one in the world for executions per capita, was addressing the 71st Session of the United Nation General Assembly. During his speech, according to the Associated Press, an unprecedented number of protesters gathered in Dag Hammerskjold Plaza outside the UN — including Senator Joe Lieberman, and Sir Geoffrey Robertson, former Head of the UN war crimes tribunal for Sierra Leone, who wrote a report on Iran’s 1988 massacre that was published on the United Nations Arts Initiative website.

After two months of an onslaught by troops of the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy along with the Polish Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire under the command of King John Sobieski rose to defend Christianity at Kahlenberg Mountain near Vienna in September 1683. The battle marked the turning point in the 300 year Ottoman-Hapsburg wars with Christianity. In this instance Christianity prevailed on the European continent.

Three hundred and thirty years later Europe is once again being called on to defend its civilization against Muslims swarming into the continent at a record rate. This time two of Europe’s most affluent nations, Sweden and Germany have laid out the welcome mat. More than a million migrants will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year. But not everyone is so welcoming. The request for firearms in Europe has been overwhelming as people are seeking the means to defend themselves against rampaging and often criminal migrants. Self-defense – which for decades were words that connoted “out-of-control” – is now widely accepted. In Austria gun sales are at record levels.

ISIS trained jihadists, returning as European citizens are infiltrating the ranks of the migrants. They are the vanguard in this civilizational war. But resistance is building. Most Italians are opposed to new arrivals. The British passed Brexit in large part to oppose the EU mandated migrant quota. Swedes have observed baseball bat wielding teenagers beat up Muslims at the Stockholm train station. President Orban of Hungary foresees the “destruction of Europe” in this migration push and argues it is time to push back.

This, of course, is merely the thin edge of the wedge. From an electoral standpoint, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel was soundly defeated in local elections. Political change is just over the horizon in France, Spain, Austria and Italy. Every incidence of reported rape, beating, and honor killing generates thousands of voters for stability at any price.

A Turkish man kicked a woman in the face leaving her severely bruised because she was wearing shorts. But in this increasingly Islamicized nation, a court released the assailant saying that he hadn’t committed any crime.

After the New Year’s Eve assaults in Cologne and 17 other cities, fears were heightened in every European capital. But Cardinal Rainer Woelki of Cologne reserved most of his concern for the threats from right wing circles that were intent on retaliation. Other cardinals raised the specter of Islamophobia and the return of “new nationalism” – a euphemism for neo-Nazis. But what the Church could not do and has not done is condemn in unequivocal language the damage to European civilization of a borderless continent that has allowed the free flow of migrants from worn torn Syria. Clearly compassion has its place, but so too do the limits of compassion.

BODO, Norway—When the U.S. wants to learn what Russia is doing in the Arctic, it often turns to the Norwegian military, which has been conducting operations for decades from this Arctic town amid the fiords.

These days, it isn’t the volume of Russian military activity in the region that concerns Norway and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. Adm. Haakon Bruun-Hanssen, Norway’s chief of defense, says Russian military activity in the Barents Sea has grown in recent years but still pales in comparison to Cold War levels.

What concerns him, he says, is the increased sophistication Norway is seeing in the far north, as the Kremlin modernizes its armed forces. NATO forces retain an upper hand in conventional equipment and prowess, he said, but Russia is catching up with new sensors, submarines and capabilities.

ENLARGE

“The equality between Russian military capability and Western military capability has started to come very close to each other, like it used to be in the Cold War,” Adm. Bruun-Hanssen said in an interview during a recent trip to Bodo by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

While the number of Russian intercepts and operations is “far smaller” than during the Cold War, he said, “the difference is now we are talking about new types of platforms, new types of sensors, new types of weapons systems that are far more flexible and far more capable than we had during the Cold War.”

The buildup has served as a wake-up call to U.S. military officials, especially as diplomatic ties with Moscow fray over Syria, and to European countries such as Norway, which scaled back their defenses in the 1990s and early 2000s after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

NATO officials say they have been stepping up antisubmarine and other naval exercises as part of their efforts to deter Russian aggression, conducting an antisubmarine exercise this summer in the Norwegian sea with eight allies. CONTINUE AT SITE

Theresa May promised that “Brexit means Brexit” when she became Britain’s Prime Minister this summer, and she seems to have meant it. She said this weekend that by March she will formally begin negotiations with Brussels to leave the European Union, setting the stage for Brexit in 2019. Now Britain needs to live up to the other half of her famous dictum and “make a success of it.”

Doing that requires thinking big—much bigger than most British and European politicians are currently doing. London is consumed with debates about “hard Brexit” versus “soft Brexit,” meaning how much of its newfound independence Britain will surrender back to Brussels in exchange for how much access to the European market. The softees say Britain should preserve market access even at the cost of subjecting itself to most EU rules, as Norway and Switzerland do. The hard side says Britain should walk away from the EU so London can impose stringent immigration controls.

This debate is a trap. Attempts to cater to Brussels’s innate protectionism by bargaining Britain back into the unhappy circle will let the EU whittle away the advantages of Britain’s new freedom. But Britain also can’t afford to abandon Europe given the mutual economic ties that already exist.

Instead of hard or soft, Mrs. May and her colleagues should focus on creating a better Brexit to build a Greater Britain. That means radically expanding Britain’s trading relations abroad while boosting competitiveness at home. Thinking big this way would make the most of Britain’s new opportunity while helping Britain drive the right kind of exit with the EU.

Britain needn’t wait until it leaves the EU to start negotiating trade deals, and potential trade partners shouldn’t hold back either. Brussels insists Britain can’t open trade talks on its own while still formally an EU member. Plenty of London bureaucrats and lawyers may be tempted to agree. But why should Jean-Claude Juncker or Angela Merkel get a veto over Washington’s, Ottawa’s or Canberra’s ability to strike a trade deal with London?

Britain should aspire to have high-quality free-trade agreements in place with the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand from the first post-Brexit day in 2019. Their historical ties are close, and all four countries of the Anglosphere have attempted to negotiate trade deals with the EU. Countries such as South Korea that already have EU deals could conclude new bilateral deals quickly. British Trade Secretary Liam Fox said last week he is also open to trade deals with developing countries. Brazil, China, India, Nigeria and others can jump at that invitation after years of trade difficulties with the EU. CONTINUE AT SITE

The separatist leaders in Kashmir, as often happens with opponents (such as the Palestinians or Iran) seem to take any willingness to negotiate as sign of weakness, and start pursuing their own agendas with even more aggression.

Their agenda of the separatists has consistently been one of radical Islamist rule in Kashmir.

“They [the separatists] are not ready for it [a political solution]. They are not ready even to open their doors. They enjoy fuelling violence and getting innocents killed,” said Ram Madhav, General Secretary of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata party.

The refusal of Kashmiri separatist leaders to meet an all-party Indian parliamentary delegation led by India’s Home Minister, Rajnath Singh, that visited Kashmir on September 4-5 to strike a political solution for the strife-torn state, was hardly surprising. The separatist leaders in Kashmir, as often happens with opponents (such as the Palestinians or Iran) seem to take any willingness to negotiate as sign of weakness, and start pursuing their own agendas with even more aggression.

“They [the separatists] are not ready for it [a political solution]. They are not ready even to open their doors. They enjoy fuelling violence and getting innocents killed,” said Ram Madhav, General Secretary of the ruling Bharatiya Janata party.

If New Delhi is serious about establishing peace in the Kashmir Valley, it is futile to waste any more time with separatist leaders belonging to the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), a united front of 26 political, social and religious organizations all committed to the cause of Kashmiri independence from India. It would be naïve to entertain any hope of a positive response from them.

The history of the behaviour of APHC leaders and similar groups shows that they evidently have little interest in the values of peace, secularism and development, which are dear to India and all democratic societies. Their agenda has consistently been one of radical Islamist rule in Kashmir. Their approach during the current crisis there merely confirms this pattern. They continue to spread a message of hatred and violence against the Indian authorities by portraying them as “anti-people.”

These separatists are allegedly aligned with the establishment in Islamabad, Pakistan, to foment unrest in Kashmir. APHC leader Ali Shah Geelani holds an Indian passport, only to indulge in an anti-India rhetoric . On August 14, 2015, another separatist, Asiya Andrabi, hoisted the Pakistani flag in Jammu and Kashmir. Both Geelani and Andrabi addressed a Jama’at-ud-Da’wah rally in Pakistan, led by Hafiz Saeed, a co-founder of Lashkar-e-Toiba and chief of Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, which has had sanctions placed against it by the United Nations as a terrorist outfit promoting an anti-India agenda.

These leaders also seem to have financial interests in being close to Pakistan. Recently, the separatist Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s son, Nayeem Geelani, has come to the attention of India’s National Intelligence Agency, for having transferred a large amount of money into the bank account of reported terrorist, Syed Salahuddin, based in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Another country and another group of voters who sent the experts to that place that we can’t say in a family blog.

Let’s go to Colombia first:

A Colombian peace deal that the president and the country’s largest rebel group had signed just days before was defeated in a referendum on Sunday, leaving the fate of a 52-year war suddenly uncertain.

A narrow margin divided the yes-or-no vote, with 50.2 percent of Colombians rejecting the peace deal and 49.8 percent voting in favor, the government said.

The result was a deep embarrassment for President Juan Manuel Santos. Just last week, Mr. Santos had joined arms with leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or the FARC, who apologized on national television during a signing ceremony.

The surprise surge by the “no” vote — nearly all major polls had indicated resounding approval — left the country in a dazed uncertainty not seen since Britain voted in June to leave the European Union. And it left the future of rebels who had planned to rejoin Colombia as civilians — indeed, the future of the war itself, which both sides had declared over — unknown.

Both sides vowed they would not go back to fighting.

So what happened in Colombia?

Let me introduce you to my good friend Daniel Duquenal who lives next door in Venezuela. I agree with him that President Santos, who was President Uribe’s defense minister, made a huge mistake in bringing Cuba (not an honest broker) into the middle of these negotiations:

Then came the choice of Havana and Castro’s guidance to negotiate with its allies, the communist FARC.