RUTHFULLY YOURS

All anti-Western movements – including jihadist movements – are legitimate responses to what Obama perceives as the crime of Western power.Since the Islamic State attacks in Paris on November 13, we have seen the development of a new, and strange justification for the Obama administration’s insistent refusal to jettison its manifestly failed strategy of contending with IS specifically and with Islamic terrorism generally.

In broad terms, Obama’s strategy for dealing with radical Islamic terrorism and jihadist movements is to ignore their motivating ideologies, take minimal action to combat them, criticize other governments for failing to destroy IS and its jihadist brethren on their own, and attack Republicans for criticizing Obama’s strategy for defeating radical Islamic terrorism.

The new justification for Obama’s refusal to revise his strategy was first uttered by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate on November 14. Five days later, the Democratic National Committee produced an ad attacking Republican presidential candidates based on this new rhetorical theme.

Obama himself resonated the new message during his press conference in Malaysia on Sunday.

According to the new taking points, Republicans have no right to criticize Obama, or Clinton, for their failure to contend with the nature of the enemy because in ignoring the enemy’s doctrine, ideology and strategic goals, they are merely following in president George W. Bush’s footsteps.

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

He came on the show to discuss The Dreadful Lessons of ISIS’s Paris Massacre, shedding troubling light on Jihadists’ dire warning to America.

[See also Stephen on the Glazov Gang special: How “Rules of Engagement” Get U.S. Soldiers Killed.]

Don’t miss it!

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/11/25/the-dreadful-lessons-of-isiss-paris-massacre-on-the-glazov-gang/

The Palestinian Authority (PA) sees no need for international intervention to halt its own crackdown on freedom of speech. Nor does it consider the closure of a newspaper office and the detention of journalists as a “war crime.”

The report reveals that Palestinian detainees have been undergoing severe torture while in PA detention. During the past few years, ten people have died in Palestinian prisons. As far as we can see, no one from the European community has taken the slightest notice.

The detention of Khalil is seen in the context of the PA’s continued effort to silence and intimidate Palestinian journalists who dare to criticize the Palestinian leadership and its institutions.

The PA clearly wants a media that reports only against Israel. The only incitement permitted is the one directed there.

Western human rights groups that regularly condemn Israel for its actions against Palestinians have, as usual, failed to respond to this latest assault by the PA on public freedoms. The PA’s crackdown on the media is not going to attract the attention of the mainstream media in the West: the story lacks an anti-Israel angle.

Did you wonder where the French learned to do the seven-hour commando raid on the Paris apartment where the Islamic terrorists holed up? Answer: Israel. The training was thanks to an American Jewish non-profit called JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an actual conservative group of Jewish patriots.

JINSA has a Law Enforcement Exchange Program, LEEP, run by Steven Pomerantz, the Former Assistant Director of the FBI. They send high level American law enforcement people to Israel to learn how to fight Islamic terrorists – think the Chief of NYPD and the Head of the Counter Terrorism Department of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Police and sheriffs from around our country have changed their counter-terrorism strategy and tactics thanks to cutting edge lessons they learned in Israel. LEEP also brings Israeli counter-terror experts to America to train departments here.

This should be delivered to our president and to Hillary Clinton….rsk
ISIS says Islam is one thing and you insist it is nothing of the kind. Unless you are prepared to address, explain and specifically refute the Koran’s endorsements of murder, rape, intolerance and conquest, I’ll remain confused. Absent that, your latest sermon is an empty polemic, clarifying nothing.

Dear Waleed,
Anti-Muslim sentiment is growing in Australia, evidenced by the United Patriotic Front’s countrywide marches at the weekend. We learnt on this week’s Four Corners that de-radicalisation programs haven’t been very successful in Australia to date. Meanwhile, the other night, Waleed, you caused a sensation with your impassioned call for unity in the wake of the latest Paris terror attacks. But while I share your moral outrage I can’t help feeling that you’re not really helping the situation.

I’m sure you’d agree that truth is the aim of serious discussion, but on a sensitive topic like the role of Islam in terrorism it’s very hard to come by. I’m no expert on Islam; but that’s just the point. I’m typical of Australians who are confused by extremist positions on all sides and trying to make sense of where the truth lies. Extremists, by definition, don’t suffer those who disagree with them, they’re intolerant of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow view. And on that definition, I think you, too, are an extremist Waleed.

There are three vocal and extreme positions in this debate: the Islamic State, with its literal reading of the Koran and Prophet’s life; anti-Muslim groups such as the United Patriotic Front; and non-violent Muslim apologists like yourself. Common to all three is a narrow interpretation of Islam and intolerance for those who question their views.

As if the head-loppers did not have enough to worry about, what with rumours of a virgin shortage in Paradise and financial anxieties arising from missed Centerlink appointments. Now our PM has blitzed the Beard Brigade with a Dispatch Box barrage of his best, mostly borrowed cliches.
Our freshly-minted prime minister, Mr Ozemail, has appointed General Waleed Aly of Monash University, Channel 10 and the ABC, as his national security adviser. The appointment was announced to the cheers of the House of Representatives today, as the politicians re-lived the spine-shivery thrills of excitement they experienced on the hundred millionth replay of Aly’s national security address to the nation last week.

Aly, it will be remembered, broke the news that Islamic State is weak. He described ISIL as “The mouse that roars.” Listen:

There is a reason ISIL still want to appear to powerful, why they don’t want to acknowledge that the land they control has been taken from weak enemies…ISIL don’t want you to know they would quickly be crushed if they ever face d a proper Army on a battlefield.

They want you to fear them. They want you to get angry. They want all of us to become hostile.

These powerful insights had not gone unnoticed by Mr Ozemail, although busy flitting from city to city with leadership peers on international business. So it may well be that he called for Waleed to churn out the script for his first national security statement to Parliament. And this is what he read out:

When the U.N. climate-change talks convene in Paris next week, the risks will be high for American taxpayers. President Obama wants a climate deal and is willing to pay dearly to get it. The inevitable outcome is a plan with unproven benefits and unreachable goals, but very real costs. It will be up to Congress to check the president’s ambition of committing the U.S. to an international green scheme that will produce little or no return.

The ostensible goal of the Paris talks (Nov. 30-Dec. 11) is to convince countries to commit to enacting laws that reduce carbon emissions. That fits President Obama’s vision of a world without fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. The American people oppose these policies, but the president has shown himself determined to circumvent Congress.

The Obama administration has already imposed burdensome regulations—for instance, the sprawling Clean Power Plan aimed at wiping out the coal industry—that will raise the cost of energy and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. Now the president wants his negotiators to use these international climate talks to pile on more restrictions.

Last month, French President Francois Hollande ridiculed the idea that the massive numbers of Muslim migrants entering his country were any kind of threat.

“Those who argue that we are being invaded are manipulators and falsifiers, who do this only for political reasons, to scare,” the left-wing politician huffed.

And then the pudgy little Socialist had to be rapidly evacuated from France’s national soccer stadium after one of those refugees blew himself up trying to reach Monsieur le Président, and Merkel’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Minister Steinmeier had urged rejecting “barriers, fences” when it came to the Muslim migrants, but it was a barrier and the security in front of it that kept one of his beloved refugees from reaching him.

The ordinary people who didn’t have and don’t have the security measures that protect Hollande and Steinemeier died in Paris, blown up and gunned down where they sat, lay and stood.

Hollande’s rhetoric is familiar. You can hear it from Obama. You can catch it on the news. We have nothing to worry about. At least not until the bombs start going off. There will be a multi-layered vetting process. The same system that let in all the terrorists before won’t let us down now.

At least not until it does.

Everything’s fine until the bombs go off. Then we’re told not to worry about it because there’s no way it could possibly happen again. Not with this new hashtag our brightest brains have cooked up. And then we can let 10,000 potential terrorists into the country while ignoring all the “falsifiers” warning of an “invasion.”

It worked for France. It’ll work for us.

Vetting for Syrian migrants works as well in the real world as it does for left-wing politicians.

After announcing that Germany would not place limits on the number of asylum-seekers it accepts, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now considering a quota system. The turnaround wasn’t her choice.

In early September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued an order to bring thousands of refugees who were stranded in Hungary to Germany. Germany’s basic right to asylum has no upper limits, she said.

It was a moment of unaccustomed conviction from a chancellor who had become notorious for her ability to avoid making decisions until the last possible moment. But she went even further. She equated the refugee issue with other significant turning points in the history of her party, the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU). Issues such as West Germany’s integration into Western alliances and Kohl’s commitment to keeping nuclear weapons stationed in West Germany in the 1980s. It was as though she were elevating her refugee policy into the pantheon of Christian Democratic basic principles.

And she didn’t even bother to inform the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), before doing so.

Now, though, Merkel is in the process of preparing a reversal of her refugee policy. At the G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey at the beginning of the week, she spoke of quotas — fixed numbers of refugees that Europe is willing to accept. On the one hand, of course, introduction the idea of quotas is a concession to reality, because the chancellor knows that the ongoing arrival to Germany of up to 10,000 refugees every day is not sustainable.

Analysts falsely believed Islamic State was too weak to carry out terror attacks abroad. But IS views terror as a means to an end — and will launch attacks as long as they continue to serve its broader strategy.

“It was a terrible night. We heard the roar of the jets, the detonations. Then, the power suddenly went out and everything sunk into darkness,” the young woman on the phone says. She said that she could only see the flashes from the explosions, with one bomb landing right near where she was. “But I don’t want to die after all that we have already gone through here.”

The woman is from Raqqa, where Islamic State has its headquarters in Syria. She lives there together with her parents and brothers. Still. As do so many other civilians. On the phone, she was describing the first wave of attacks in the “war” that French President François Hollande declared against Islamic State following the attacks in Paris. The bombs dropped by French fighter jets hit both used and abandoned IS bases, the former army camp of Bashar Assad’s Division 17, the polyclinic, the horse racetrack and a main power cable. The woman’s brother is a taxi driver, and he witnessed numerous injured fighters being brought to the hospital, which had been closed to civilians.

Still, the raid isn’t likely to have hit any Islamic State leaders. The air strikes over the weekend were apparently an attempt to kill Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who is thought to have been a key figure behind the Paris attacks and who the French initially thought might be in Raqqa. He was ultimately killed in Wednesday morning police raids in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis.

But the upper echelons of IS have been living for months in the city’s densely populated residential areas and are careful to keep their movements inconspicuous. As such, they have likely been able to escape the US-led coalition’s airstrikes, which have been ongoing for 15 months.