RUTHFULLY YOURS

We live in the age of the sanctified tantrum—the political and religious furies we dare not name or shame, much less confront.

Students bully college administrators with contrived political demands. The administrators plead they can do better, then capitulate. Incompetent writers pen trite racial screeds aimed at the very society that lifts them above their ability. They are hailed as geniuses. Donald Trump’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination epitomizes the politics of the tantrum. He’s angry as hell, and so is his base. We’re supposed to respect this.

And then there is the tantrum of Islam, another eruption of rage that feeds off our astonishing willingness to indulge it.

Before Friday’s carnage in the City of Light, the world was treated to the hideous spectacle of Palestinians knifing Jews in Israel. The supposed motive of these stabbings was a rumor among Palestinians—fanned by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas—that the Israeli government intended to allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.

Foreign Minister states opposition to “irrational” guidelines, in presence of top EU representatives.
Hungary will not place special labels on products from the West Bank and the Golan Heights, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó told a breakfast meeting of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations in Jerusalem on Monday, characterizing the European Union’s decision to affix special labels on such products as “irrational.”
Szijjártó, 37, who has been in politics since 1998, and a member of the National Assembly of Hungary since 2002, said on a lightning 24-hour visit to Israel labeling these products will not contribute to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and could cause more problems and damage.

“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” Koran 61:9

Islamic violence is a religious problem.

Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.

The fulfillment of Islam depends on the subjugation of non-Muslims so that violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion.

When Hamas states that, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” or the ISIS rapists tell Yazidi girls that rape “draws them closer to Allah”, they really do mean it.

They are not perverting a great religion, as our politicians claim, they are living it.

Everything they do is based on the Koran, the body of Islamic law and the greater history of Islam.

In the wake of the Paris attacks, it is vital to acknowledge that 14 years after 9/11, even the lexicon we use in connection with the slow-motion global jihad continues to be fatally flawed.

Lack of clarity and precision in terminology and definitions indicates a lack of cogency in our own minds; as it pertains to our understanding of the Islamic supremacist enemy — never referred to by our “leaders” as such — incoherence portends failure with respect to defending America against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Take our use of the word “terrorist” for example. I would submit that this term in and of itself misclassifies the enemy, and in effect serves its efforts by witting or unwitting obfuscation.

Terrorism is a tactic; the enemy properly defined consists of adherents to an Islamic supremacist, theopolitical ideology — that is, self-described jihadists. As others have noted, in World War II we did not refer to our enemy as “the blitzkrieg.”

French leaders consistently act in ways that undermine their stated goal of eradicating Islamic terror.

Critics of the policy say “Daesh” is a politically correct linguistic device that allows Western leaders to claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic — and thus ignore the root cause of Islamic terror and militant jihad.

French leaders have also been consistently antagonistic toward Israel, a country facing Islamic terror on a daily basis. France is leading international diplomatic efforts to push for a UN resolution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within a period of two years. The move effectively whitewashes Palestinian terror.

French critics of Islam are routinely harassed with strategic lawsuits that seek to censor, intimidate and silence them. In a recent case, Sébastien Jallamion, a 43-year-old policeman from Lyon was suspended from his job and fined 5,000 euros after he condemned the death of Frenchman Hervé Gourdel, who was beheaded by jihadists in Algeria.

“Those who denounce the illegal behavior of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.” — Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s Front National.

French President François Hollande has vowed to avenge the November 13 jihadist attacks in Paris that left more than 120 dead and 350 injured.

In terms of population size, the 129 persons murdered in Paris were equivalent to losing 1,000 Americans in our nation’s capital. With echoes of 9/11, President Hollande declared the massacre an “act of war,” pledging to fight with “all the necessary means, and on all terrains, inside and outside, in coordination with our allies.” Allies include America. An attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all. France stood with us in Afghanistan. Will the U.S. join with France in going to war? And what does war mean?

President Obama’s Options. A few days ago, President Obama claimed that ISIS had been “contained.” Now the Islamists have called him out. He has no choice; he has to do something. He has three options.

Option 1. Do nothing, with a flourish. Given his track record of the past seven years, the odds are that he will create a fog of rhetoric and a thicket of high-level meetings, while substantive military actions will be slight. There will be an uptick in videos of laser-bomb strikes released by the White House. Public attention will fade after a few months.

Option 2. A defensive no-fly zone. The second option is to create a no-fly zone in northern Syria. To date, he has firmly declared that he will not do this. Our military would need substantial air-related assets, costing in the billions. The odds are overwhelming that both the Russians and Assad’s air force would stay away from the zone, not least because they stand no chance against our air.

However, a no-fly zone by itself is a defensive move that gets us into a war without the resolve or resources to win it. The zone would still be vulnerable to ground-based attacks. To prevent that and to apply pressure against ISIS, the allies would have to turn the zone into a forward operating base, moving in tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships, trainers, logistics, etc. To do that requires a major force numbering more than 10,000. At that point, the no-fly zone has morphed into a ground war.

Option 3. An Arab-NATO ground offensive. That brings us to Obama’s third option: pulling together a NATO-Sunni Arab coalition to prosecute a land campaign. By themselves, the rebels in Syria cannot destroy either the Assad regime or ISIS. A Sunni Arab army composed of forces from Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, backed by American advisers and forward air controllers, is needed.

NEW YORK — News of the terrorist attacks in Paris reached New York around sunset, as people rode home on buses and subways, and began to fill bars and restaurants. But the way such news breaks these days is no longer communal — we no longer have to gather around a ticker in Times Square or even a TV set showing CNN, as so many Americans remember doing on 9/11.

Now, we find out about tragedies first from our cell phones, one by one. The best way to follow the developing story was on Twitter, where eyewitnesses from Paris were being retweeted by journalists in the U.S. On Facebook, New Yorkers who had friends in Paris checked in to make sure they had survived.

There was grief, and horror, and fear — surely it is only a matter of time before the kind of coordinated terrorist attacks that have shaken Madrid and London, Mumbai and Paris, come to New York and Washington as well. What was missing — and this is a part of the horror — was any real sense of surprise.

If ever there was an atrocity foretold, it was these mass murders in Paris, following as they do on the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the Hyper Cacher killings at the beginning of the year.

It was all of 1400 years ago that Muhammad went to his Maker or some other entity prepared to accept receipt of his warlord’s soul, but the intolerant and expansionists babblings of the man who must surely rank as the world’s worst-ever neighbour draw blood now as then

We infidels are only just beginning to understand the flexibility of the Koran. There is a ready-made verse for every occasion – to prove the peacefulness of Islam or, more frequently, to proclaim the wrath and terrible vengeance of Allah to be visited on idolators and kafirs (despised unbelievers).

Most recently, Islamic State chose Al-Hashr:2, the 59th “exile surah” as the lesson for the day to headline its murderous attacks in Paris:

The Almighty said: “And they thought that their strongholds would defend them from the wrath of Allah! But Allah’s (wrath) reached them from a way whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes to see.”

What the Paris atrocity reveals yet again is that the people our leaders are most worried about managing is us, not the local and imported jihadist cells and homicidal lone wolves who want nothing more than to achieve martyrdom by murdering infidels in job lots
Our leaders have failed us. Paris confirms it. Make no mistake, at the end of the day their loyalties lie not with the people who elected them, nor with the societies that they govern or the civilisation of the West that has dragged the world out of poverty and barbarism and onto the path of progress. What loyalty they possess is only to their own careers and ambitions and to the special-interest groups they serve.

The latest atrocity in Paris exemplifies this failure. The knee-jerk reaction of Malcolm Turnbull was to follow the lead of the predictably craven Barak Obama and mouth meaningless platitudes about “attacks on humanity” and other abstractions, carefully avoiding any real acknowledgement that the cowardly perpetrators of this latest episode of jihadist mass murder were Muslims and that the hideous ideology they follow is a widely accepted interpretation of Islam. Meanwhile, NSW Premier Mike Baird tried to demonstrate resolve by declaring that NSW was so outraged that authorities would fly a big French flag over the Harbour Bridge and bathe the Sydney Opera House in the Tricolour’s red, white and blue. The leadership of Islamic State must be shaking in their sandals at such a display of defiance and intestinal fortitude!

Why shouldn’t Islamists believe that just a few more bloody nudges will see the West teeter, topple and surrender the last of the values it has not already repudiated in the name of “diversity” and non-judgmental amity? If we won’t defend liberty’s core principles the game is as good as over

The shocking events in Paris should come as no surprise. The earlier massacre at the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo achieved strategically all that the Islamic Jihad would have desired. That was the climax of Stage I. Mission accomplished.

Hang on there, you may object. Yes, the massacre was awful, but then Charlie Hebdo had overstepped the bounds of polite discourse. Maybe those cartoonists and writers provoked the attack? This, so the reasoning goes, was a warning to others not to engage in “hate speech”, whatever that is supposed to mean. In Western countries, supposedly the bastions of free speech, the definition has been left in the hands of un-elected quasi-judicial bodies, which are ever-so-sensitive to the hurt feelings of Muslims. As we should recall, the staged march of solidarity on a Paris street by world leaders in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre included not only representatives from Islamic states committed to the advance of Sharia and the elimination of free speech, but also Western leaders, who despite their hypocritical protestations for the occasion had presided over a shrinkage of Western freedoms and values — curtailments of traditional liberties inflicted in the interests of appeasing a vocal and permanently aggrieved minority.