RUTHFULLY YOURS

You in the mainstream media have been amazing in your support for Hamas, and we’re so grateful to you. This really helps us in spreading anti-Semitism, and starting new rounds of terror at will. Blessings be upon you, love from Hamas
Dear Members of the Mainstream Media,

You’ve been awesome! Everyone knows that we start unwinnable wars with Israel because the real victory happens when you predictably side with us each time. And you’ve been so supportive of our strategy that we really want to acknowledge your helpfulness. In particular, we thank you for:

-Focusing so much more on our suffering than anyone else’s. Nigerians must die in far greater numbers before you take notice, so we’re glad that you value our lives so much more.

-Minimizing your coverage, if any, of our attacks that led up to Israel’s military response and generally providing so little context that outsiders think that Israelis kill Palestinians just for fun. We’re especially grateful to the French media for this.

Their distortions of the conflict are so one-sided that they incite Muslims across France to attack Jews and synagogues, and that is welcomed by our anti-Semitic worldview (although, unfortunately, such attacks remind everyone why Jews need a state).

-Emphasizing our civilian death toll without explaining that (1) our casualty reports are hasty and inflated, and (2) we maximize that total by using Palestinians to shield our weapons and by urging them to stay in the very areas that the IDF — in its annoying effort to minimize our civilian deaths — warns Gazans to evacuate.

-Never mentioning the fact that if we could kill millions of Israelis, we would (after all, our charter calls for Israel’s destruction). Just as the 9/11 hijackers made the most of what they had but would have liked to kill far more Americans (for example, with the help of WMD), we too would love to kill far more Israelis.

You wouldn’t think it if you’d been watching the BBC, but the death tolls in Gaza and Ukraine are not that far apart. Why is the media obsessing about Gaza and paying so much less attention to Ukraine? asks John Redwood MP

I have no time for Russia arming the rebels or assisting them to intensify the conflict in the Ukraine. I do, however, have worries about the continuing high level of deaths and injuries in the intense fighting that has been going on there.

I note that the UN says both sides – including the Ukrainian government – have been shelling areas where civilians are at risk. The UN thinks 1,129 people have died in the fighting between mid April and late July. There are unconfirmed reports of children being killed, of an attack on a retirement home and other atrocities.

We do know that the inspectors who need to retrieve the final casualties from the Malaysian airliner and start to investigate the cause of the crash are often blocked by military action from getting to the site.

Can’t the government and rebels at least agree a protected zone around the crash that can be free from fighting so the work can proceed? Does the Ukrainian government have no authority, no moral stance that can command respect in the east of its country?

I find it almost unbelievable that in 2014 in a part of Europe armed rebels fire against the government and local population, and that the government shells and bombs them. Why can’t the newly elected President exercise some political skills and sit down and talk through the problems?

In the end this has to be solved by political means. You cannot shell people into accepting democracy. It has to be built from both sides by active discussion and painful agreement.

I also find it curious that the media, who give us such graphic reports of the bombs, shells and deaths in Gaza, give us so little about the same problems in the Ukraine where the EU is heavily involved on the side of the Ukrainian government.

Teenage girls, heading to sex slavery for jihadists in the Middle East, are apprehended by Spanish police. The BBC and other mainstream outlets in Europe refuse to report such instances for fear of offending politically correct narratives

In breaking news from Spain, that has not been reported in mainstream media, two female teenageers have been rescued by Spanish police from being trafficked to Syria or Iraq as sex slaves for the male fighters, in the Jihad.

Spain’s English language news-media outlet, The Local, reported that the girls, aged 14 and 19, were arrested in the Spanish, north African exclave of Ceuta, which is less than 20 miles from Gibraltar.

The Local reported:

“According to a police statement, they were “on the brink” of being transferred directly to Iraq or Syria by members of a Moroccan recruitment cell.

“…It’s the first time that the police have detained women in Spain who were planning on joining the jihad,” a police chief told the newspaper.

“Sources close to the investigation have stressed that the two girls were drawn in to the jihadist movement through internet forums.”

Mainstream media in Europe do not report such instances, for fear of being labelled Islamophobic. Nor do they report that women are increasingly being transferred to jihadists in the Middle East as sex slaves.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/6-videos-that-show-the-truth-about-the-war-in-gaza/?print=1 In the Gaza war, now probably winding down, when you’re not hearing that Israel is supposedly attacking a school [1] you’re hearing that it’s supposedly attacking a hospital. What’s going on? Is Israel really a monstrously aggressive country? Seemingly hospitals, of all institutions, should be immune from war. Hospitals are the only place where some of […]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/6-ugly-signs-of-resurgent-worldwide-antisemitism/ 6 Ugly Signs of Resurgent Worldwide Antisemitism Posted By Robert Spencer [1]Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV channel in late July [2] broadcast a Friday sermon in which an imam issued a chilling threat to Jews: “We will not leave a single one of you alive. Our doctrine in fighting you is that we will totally exterminate […]

People in the Middle East who put their trust in Barack Obama are suffering right now.

In January, President Obama likened fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to a “jayvee team” in Lakers jerseys on the basketball court.

Eight months later, that squad of bloodthirsty maniacs is playing quite a game of pickup. Occupying swaths of territory stretching from Syria into Iraq, ISIS stands in control of a landmass unprecedented in the annals of terrorist organizations, makes millions of dollars a day selling oil on the black market, has beheaded men and sold women into slavery, and now threatens to kill 40,000 Yazidis — an Iraqi sect ISIS accuses of devil-worship.

It was the plight of the Yazidis, stranded on a mountain, that ultimately compelled the president to initiate a humanitarian airlift of food and water, which he announced from the White House Thursday night. The president has also authorized a limited number of air strikes on ISIS forces approaching the Yazidis. The mission, however, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, will be “very limited in scope.” This led Senator John McCain, in an exclusive interview with my Daily Beast colleague Josh Rogin, to ridicule the strikes as mere “pinpricks,” a reference to Obama’s insistence last year that the strikes he briefly supported in response to Assad’s chemical-weapons attacks would not be useless.

Asked seven years ago if the need to stave off potential genocide might convince him to change his mind about a total and precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, then-candidate Obama replied that it would not. “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said.

This cynical avowal, I wrote at the time, was an indication of what might become the “Obama doctrine,” which I described thusly: “The United States will remain passive in the face of genocide.” Seven years later, I regret to say, my prediction stands up pretty well.

In Syria, some 150,000 to 200,000 people have died as a result of President BasharAssad’s war on his own people. “The photos show crimes the likes of which we have not seen since Auschwitz,” international war-crimes prosecutor David Crane said last month upon viewing images of tortured and murdered Syrians. Never mind the innocent lives lost: Assad is an enemy of the United States, Iran’s sole Arab ally, and, as a backer of Hezbollah and Hamas, a major source of instability in the region. Equipping and training the moderate rebels who were once poised to defeat him was categorically in the American interest. But Obama never seriously entertained the idea of overthrowing Assad. Far from it: The first three years of his presidency saw one slavish attempt at conciliation after another, until Assad began murdering Syrians en masse and Obama, fecklessly, announced that the president-for-life must “step aside.”

Nixon shattered the rule of law, but Bill Clinton subjected himself to national-security blackmail.
Forty years ago tomorrow, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace. He also set off a mini-industry in the media, which for decades has been obsessed with Watergate.

John Dean, a Nixon co-conspirator who moved to the left after his time in prison, wrote a book trashing the Bush years that he entitled “Worse than Watergate.” As for Nixon, a new HBO documentary about Nixon “takes a fresh look at the Nixon tapes to make the case that the already vilified 37th president was not as bad as you may think — he was worse,” ABC News Radio reported. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus concluded this week that four decades “after he slunk out of office, Richard M. Nixon retains the capacity to astonish and disgust.”

Nixon was in some ways sui generis in his contempt for the rule of law. But it is fascinating to see that while Nixon’s stock continues to shrink, the other president who drove the country toward impeachment continues to see his image burnished by historians. I’m talking about Bill Clinton, who is already deep into his new role as strategist for a planned Clinton-family return to the White House after a 16-year absence.

In his own way, Clinton was as reckless in office as Nixon was malevolent. Pre–Monica Lewinsky, he was engulfed in scandal after scandal ranging from Travel Office firings to the improper transfer to the White House of FBI files on leading Republicans. In January 1998, on the morning the Lewinsky scandal broke, President Clinton had to confess to Colonel Robert Patterson, his senior military aide, that he had lost the nuclear codes he was supposed to carry “and couldn’t recall how long the codes had been missing.” Patterson wrote in his memoir Dereliction of Duty that he was “appalled.” We now know that Clinton’s personal life frequently distracted him from his duties, and a new book by Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard, Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine, makes the case that President Clinton’s behavior also made him a target of international blackmail and threatened national security.

Whether he was agreeing to talk with the terminally insecure Lewinsky on a moment’s notice or was spending time to conduct extensive job searches for her, President Clinton did a great deal to keep Lewinsky quiet. Nonetheless, she ended up discussing her affair with eleven people. One of those was Linda Tripp, a Pentagon official who recorded Lewinsky’s accounts of the affair. But what if Tripp or someone else had taken those tapes to Chinese or Iranian agents instead of to Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor?

Barack Obama deliberately set out to lose the war in Iraq, and he did. He defied the advice of his joint chiefs of staff to secure America’s formidable military presence and keep 20,000 troops in country, and left Iraq to its own devices and the tender mercies of Iran. In doing so, he betrayed every American and Iraqi who gave his life to create a free Iraq and keep it out of the clutches of the terrorists.

Iraq is now a war zone dominated by the terrorist forces of the Islamic State, whose rise Obama’s policies fostered. Both his secretaries of state praised the animal Bashar Assad as a “reformer” and a man of “peace,” helping him to thwart his domestic opposition. The Islamic State was born out of the Syrian chaos that ensued.

Far worse was Obama’s open support for America’s mortal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, spawner of al-Qaeda and Hamas. During the “Arab Spring,” Obama essentially put America’s weight behind the legitimization of this murderous organization that had been outlawed for 40 years for its assassinations and conspiracies against the Egyptian regime. Secretary of State Clinton gave totally unfounded assurances to the world that the Brotherhood was ready to become part of the democratic process and give up its 90-year holy war against infidels, Jews in particular but also — and explicitly — America. During the Brotherhood’s brief tenure as the government in Egypt Obama gave these genocidal zealots more than a billion dollars in American aid and F-16 fighter-bombers that could easily reach Israel’s major population centers, which for 60 years the Brotherhood had sworn to destroy.

By his feckless interventions in the Middle East, and his tacit support for the chief organization of Islam’s terror war against the West, Obama has set the Middle East on fire. All the violence in the crescent from Gaza to Iraq, including Hamas’s genocidal war against Israel, has been encouraged by Obama’s support for the Brotherhood and hostility toward the Jewish state.

Characteristic of this encouragement was his illegal intervention in Libya, which violated every principle that Obama and the Democrats invoked to attack President Bush and undermine America’s war against the Saddam regime and the terrorists in Iraq. Thanks to Obama, Libya is now in the hands of the terrorists and thousands of Libyans are fleeing to Tunisia and Egypt. Thanks to Obama, the Christian communities of Iraq, which date back to the time of Christ, are being slaughtered.

The global jihad is not nearly done with us, even if the president thinks he can wish it away.

Major General Harold Greene, who was murdered by a jihadist in Afghanistan Tuesday, is the highest-ranking American officer since the Vietnam War, 44 years ago, to be killed in combat. Or at least one hopes that he will be accorded the full honors of a soldier killed in combat. With the Obama administration and its compliant Pentagon brass, you can never be sure.

The two-star general was killed, and 15 fellow allied soldiers wounded, not on the battlefield but in the seemingly secure confines of a military base — in this instance, a training school outside Kabul. The shooting spree was carried out not by honorable combatants wearing an enemy uniform but by a stealth terrorist dressed as a member of the allied force whose treachery enabled him to kill and maim.

That makes it eerily similar, although considerably less bloody, than the Fort Hood massacre. In that 2009 attack, 13 American soldiers were murdered, and dozens wounded. The assassin was Nidal Hasan, who was formally a commissioned U.S. Army officer, but in reality a stealth terrorist — the “Soldier of Allah” described on the business cards he carried inside his soldier-of-America camouflage.

At the moment they were killed and wounded, the Americans in Fort Hood were being processed for imminent deployment to Afghanistan. They were headed to fight in the same war in which General Greene was killed by our jihadist enemies — the same “Muslim brothers” Hasan admitted mass-murdering our troops to protect.

Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as he mowed our troops down, acted while in communication with, and under the influence of, Anwar al-Awlaki, a notorious al-Qaeda operative. By 2009, Awlaki was known to have held furtive meetings with two of the principal suicide-hijackers in the days before the 9/11 attacks. He was adept at recruiting and inciting anti-American jihadists, like Hasan. Indeed, he is believed to have inspired other anti-American terror attacks and attempts.

That is why the commander-in-chief, relying on the law of war, authorized Awlaki’s killing by a drone strike in Yemen. Yet the same commander-in-chief and his Pentagon yes-men have adamantly refused to categorize the Fort Hood shootings as related to war and armed combat.

According to the July 30, 2014 Rasmussen Reports , 59% of likely US voters believe that there is a global conflict between the Muslim World and Western civilization, only 17% disagree and 24% are undecided. Likely voters also believe that the “Arab Spring” does not bode well for the US.
The US posture of deterrence played a key role in bolstering Western civilization in face of intensifying threats, checking global violence and instability, bolstering the confidence of US allies, and constraining the maneuverability of rogue regimes.
However, the current perception of the US posture of deterrence among US Arab allies is reflected by a July 27, 2014 OpEd in the leading Saudi daily, A-Sharq al-Awsat, which is one of the most influential Arab newspapers, owned by the Saudi royal family: “…. Secretary John Kerry is representing a weak US administration…. He visits Baghdad to represent an administration that lacks decision-making. He shuttles between Tel Aviv and Cairo as a mediator with no real clout…. Barack Obama’s weak foreign policy is weighing on the deteriorating situation across the world…. Washington’s position on Egypt has changed over the course of the past three years in a manner which demonstrates America’s confused vision and weak foreign policy…. Obama did not even bother to issue a statement regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forcing Mosul’s Christians to flee. Obama’s increasingly isolationist policy is damaging Kerry’s credibility….”