RUTHFULLY YOURS

A pro-Islamic State hacking group operating on the dark web has called on Muslims in the U.S. and Europe to launch attacks in their own countries.

The ‘cyber Kahilafah’ group issued a message addressing so-called ‘lone wolves’ operating in “Europe, America and Gulf States involved in the coalition fighting the Islamic State.”

“We invite you to train for combat and learn how to build and detonate improvised explosives” a chilling message on the front page of a new Zeronet portal observed by The Foreign Desk said.

“If you cannot migrate from the land of the infidels to the Caliphate, then carrying out jihad in your own country will also be a victory for the Islamic State and all Muslims,” the message read.

The website appeared on the ZeroNet network, a serverless peer-to-peer group of websites that rely on bitcoin cryptography and the BitTorrent network. These websites, though encrypted, making simple detection challenging for authorities, are accessible via a regular web browser.

According to analysts there is presently no way to take down a ZeroNet webpage that still has seeders.

Links on the ZeroNet page refer the user to an archive of PDF and video tutorials on bomb making, hacking tools and jihad guides hosted on the anonymous TOR network and a separate ZeroNet page provides a secure email address for further contact.

The message for attacks in the West echoes the sentiments of a speech given by Islamic State leader Muhammad Al Adnani in May in which he declared that “if the tyrants have shut the doors of hijra [immigration to ISIS territories] in your face, then open the gate of jihad in their faces and make them regret their action. The smallest bit of work that you can carry out in their countries is far better and beloved to us than any major work [i.e. operations] here.”

Just who asked top judges to inflate the role and authority of rights-related international law? Parliamentarians and those in favour of legislative last-word decision-making need to make clear their unease with this ever-broadening presumption to interpret, expand and impose.
If national democracy is to be maintained in any recognisable form within self-sustaining states, the power and claims of international rule-making will have to decline. —Harry Gelber, Quadrant, October 2015

… since the end of the Cold War the notion of global governance has emerged as an intellectual orthodoxy with powerful support in the academy, the media, the law, the foreign policy establishment, the corporate world, and the bureaucracies that serve international institutions and non-governmental associations.

Global governance is a reversal of our existing political arrangements. It aims to take power from democratically elected parliaments and vest it in courts, NGOs and transnational bodies. Voters would increasingly find their representatives beholden to international treaties, international legal conventions and precedents, transnational bureaucrats and lawyers. Government policy would be decided less by open debate in the national media and more in the comparatively closed world of international conferences, academic seminars, consultant reports, learned journals and legal judgments. —Keith Windschuttle, Quadrant, May 2012

The expanding reach of a fuzzy sort of rights-related international law is enervating democracy in long-established democracies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. And the courts are playing a significant role in advancing this agenda of global governance, or creeping international legal rule. We should be more sceptical about international law when it deals with human rights, considerably more so than when it deals with more traditional subject matter (such as international trade law and the law of diplomatic immunity).

It is worth beginning by recalling just what the sources of international law are and how this sort of law is made. In a long-established democracy such as Australia or New Zealand or Britain it is also worth considering whether international law or domestic law is likely to be the one that gets things right and lays down the preferable course of action when the two conflict or are in some way inconsistent.

There are two sources or types of international law. The first is treaties (sometimes called conventions). This is what most people, including most lawyers, think of when one talks of international law. Now focus for a moment on rights-related treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) or any of the various other rights-related treaties. All treaties are entered into under the prerogative power which is exercised by the executive branch of government. Accordingly, even with some newish modifications that give the legislature a tiny bit of say in some Westminster countries, the democratic input into treaties is far less than it is into statutes.

That is true of all treaties. But as we are focused on rights-related treaties, notice that these treaties are framed in vague and amorphous terms (just compare either of the above rights-related conventions to a trade-related treaty such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This makes sense in a world in which a Britain or a Canada is seeking to encourage a Sudan or a China or a Zimbabwe to enter into a treaty about standards of treatment for children or women or the disabled. There needs to be room to finesse disagreement between countries with such different histories and standards of treating their own citizens, and that is precisely what the language of these rights-related treaties and conventions delivers—scope not only for disagreement over meaning between countries that exist in such different moral galaxies but, as a result, also scope for reasonable disagreement between people living in a long-established democracy as to what the provisions mean and require.

If such rights-related treaties went into the sort of prescriptive detail one finds in, say, a trade-related treaty, then the chances of any rights-related treaty ever coming into existence would be slight. So room has been left in rights-related treaties for countries to manoeuvre around disagreements, and this is achieved through open-textured provisions that leave it to future interpreters to add detail and specifics at the point of application—at the further cost of democratic input and legitimacy when this interpreting is done. And if the interpretive approach adopted proves to be of an expansionist, “living tree” type, divorced from the original intentions of the drafters, then the problem of lack of democratic input will be further magnified—possibly substantially so. Put simply, if you believe that democratic input tends to make laws better, on average, over time, then you are likely to think that the domestic law of an Anglosphere country is better than any rights-related international treaty or convention when the two conflict or are inconsistent. (You can hold this belief while also believing that it will not be true as regards the world’s authoritarian regimes. In their cases, international law is better. And you can hold all of the above to be true and also accept that the world’s United Kingdoms and Australias care deeply about the content of rights-related treaties.)

Put bluntly, the domestic law of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and other such long-established democracies is democratically better and in practice more rights-respecting than is rights-related international law, a claim that seems to me to be as patently true as it is unlikely to be heard in polite company. For me, democracy is to be understood in procedural terms. Count us all as equal and give everyone a more or less equal say over contested social issues, including rights-related ones. On that procedural understanding of democracy, the domestic laws of the world’s Britains and New Zealands and Australias clearly score higher than any rights-related international laws.

Yesterday, I visited Maassluis. It is a town near Rotterdam, where the indigenous Dutch inhabitants have become the victims of immigrant youths of Moroccan descent.

Cars have been demolished, houses vandalized, people threatened. The Dutch no longer feel free and safe in their own city. When the local radio station interviewed some of the victims and referred to the perpetrators as Moroccans, it received an anonymous letter: “You are racists! Your time will come! I won’t take care of it because I am too old. But our boys are the new soldiers.”

Maassluis. It is just one of the many Dutch towns and neighborhoods terrorized by Moroccan or Turkish youth gangs. Others are Schilderswijk, Oosterwei, Kanaleneiland, Zaandam, Helmond. Not surprisingly, a poll shows that 43% of the Dutch people want fewer Moroccan immigrants in our country. These people are not racists; they are decent people, patriots who love their country and do not want to lose it.

The great Ronald Reagan once said that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” These wise words are more true today than ever before. We are the free men and women of the West.

Freedom is our birthright. But if we fail to defend it, we are bound to lose it. And, sadly, that is exactly what is happening today.

2016’s Black Summer of Jihad, with terror attacks all over the free world, teaches us that the enemies of freedom are already among us. The ruling elites all over the Western world have accepted millions of people into our countries without demanding that they assimilate.

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/09/29/lejla-colak-video-what-my-experience-with-islam-tells-me-about-islamophobia/

Lichfield, England-perhaps most famous as the birthplace of Dr Samuel Johnson, is a pretty city in the English Midlands. It’s the location of a medieval cathedral, notable for its unusual feature of three spires.

And it is on the premises of that cathedral that a conference (plus related book sale) is to be held over the weekend of 7-9 October (hat tip: Ian G).

As seen at left, the title of the conference is “Holding Palestine in the Light,”which reflects the despicably one-sided nature of the enterprise, for the overwhelming majority of the speakers are notable, to a greater or lesser degree, for their antipathy towards Israel.

That sad fact reflects the prejudices of the apparent driving force behind the conference, the Dean of Lichfield.

Explains the conference’s website:

“The weekend is hosted by the Very Revd. Adrian Dorber: Dean of Lichfield and Diocesan Co-ordinator for the Friends of the Holy Land, with longstanding connections to Palestine & Israel where he led both Pilgrimages and study tours.”

Dorber has held the post of Dean since 2005. Before that, we learn here,

“he was Director of Ministries and Training in the Durham Diocese, Senior Chaplain and Lecturer at Portsmouth University and served in parishes in Reading and Bracknell. He is a Trustee of the Foundation for Church Leadership, a Governor of Staffordshire University, Chairman of Governors of Lichfield Cathedral School and a member of the Lichfield Festival Board. He serves on the West Midlands Training Partnership and chairs the Diocesan Local Ministry Governing Body. He is deeply interested in the impact cathedrals have on Church and nation and how cathedrals can use their unique opportunities for mission and regeneration. Adrian was co-opted onto the AEC Executive in March 2011 and elected in June 2011. He was appointed as Chairman in July 2015. In addition to chairing the AEC, Adrian leads on cathedrals-related research”.

Below, in bold type, is the list of speakers as given on the conference website:

Professor Ilan Pappé: Israeli born leading historian at Exeter University. He has written many books on the conflict.

If there is one participant in the conference who surely doesn’t require an introduction it is the reprehensible Pappe. His topic is “‘Palestine is Still an Issue’ – why Palestine is a central issue affecting global events”.

The outrageous One State Declaration that he co-authored in 2007 is indicative of his vile attitude.

Comments below each bold typed profile, and not in bold type,are my observations.

Ahmed Masoud: is a Palestinian writer, director and academic based in the UK; he has written plays and a debut novel set in Palestine and Gaza.

At the “literary dinner” on Friday, 7 October entitled ‘Gaza in Literary Fiction” that opens the conference, Ahmed Masoud and Hannah Khalil will mention their published works. The session will include a film, “Britain in Palestine 1917-1948”.

Hannah Khalil: born of Palestinian/Irish parents, she has written a number of plays promoting the cause of Palestinians and other Arabs.

That Friday dinner will be followed on Saturday, 8 October with one of only two free sessions on the conference programme. Here’s how it’s billed:

Sumud Exhibition, with sale of goods from the Holy Land including hourly screenings of: ‘Britain in Palestine 1917-1948’ and ‘The Suffering Church’

Read about ‘Sumud’ here: it is clear that this session will consist entirely of anti-Israel pro-Arab propaganda.

On 9/11 Americans recalled the 15th anniversary of the vicious al Qaeda attack on the United States that took 2800 lives. It was yet another day in infamy. Although largely forgotten in the public memory bank, the Taliban of Afghanistan harbored the terrorists and assisted in the planning of the attack. President George W. Bush’s final act of retaliation was to strike back at the Taliban.

For 15 years U.S. troops have been on Afghan soil, albeit numbers have dwindled to about 8,000 from 150,000. What is revealing at this time is that the Taliban have launched an offensive to take a major provincial capital, a move, if successful, that would mark the most significant Taliban victory since the U.S. invasion. This is merely a rehearsal for Taliban troop movements, including the swallowing of large swaths of territory in Helmand province, a place where hundreds of NATO troops died.

A loss of provincial capitals would be catastrophic for the U.S. backed Afghan government. Moreover, if the Taliban gain effective control of the country – a not implausible scenario – extremist groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda can reconstitute their Afghan sanctuaries spreading death and destruction in the region.

The question is what will the Obama administration do about the deteriorating situation. The answer, “nothing”. President Obama is intent on the withdrawal of American troops from the region however precarious the withdrawal may be. As the president has noted, we are no longer fighting wars in the Middle East. That is true, as far as it goes. But the wars continue with or without the U.S.. American interests are now in the hands of putative enemies.

While many will say “good riddance,” this isolationist temptation also means we will be obliged to fight terrorists another day on terms favorable to them. Covering one’s eyes to the horrors in the region doesn’t make them go away. Yet this is the policy the president has outlined as his legacy.

If there is to be an American “recovery” in the next administration, it will have to be based on a foundation of national trust. Afghan leaders have seen a rise and a fall in the U.S. commitment to their nation. They remain unclear about U.S. policy. There are, presidential precautions about the terms of engagement against the enemy. There is also the president’s distemper over any disagreement in policy.

Israel this week signed a historic agreement with Jordan to supply the energy-starved kingdom with natural gas from its Leviathan gas field. The deal is worth a reported $10 billion and has instantly transformed the Jewish state into an energy exporter. In addition to the obvious pecuniary benefits to the Israeli economy, the agreement promotes regional stability by creating an energy and economic interdependence.

Israel is now looking to sign energy deals with two other regional players of import, Greece and Cyprus. Israel’s energy minister plans on traveling to Athens on Wednesday to cement agreements. The Israeli plan centers on laying a network of pipes so that natural gas can be shipped to these nations as well as other European countries. Currently, much of Europe relies on Russian gas and an alternative source would be welcome. Even Turkey, which recently exchanged ambassadors with Israel after a long hiatus, has expressed interest in cooperating with Israel in the energy sector.

Israel currently operates and lays claim to four gas fields off its coast. Two small ones are located off the shores of Ashkelon while the two larger ones – called Tamar and Leviathan – are located in the north, approximately 90 miles west of Haifa.

Leviathan should be fully operational within a few years while the other fields are already supplying Israel with natural gas. Israel derives approximately 60 percent of its electricity needs through natural gas. Energy officials estimate that since the gas began flowing just over a decade ago, Israel has saved approximately 35.5 billion shekels which translates to $9.6 billion.

The welcome news however, comes with cost. Lebanon, which is controlled by Hezbollah, which in turn receives its marching orders from Iran, has laid claim to Israel’s energy finds. Lebanon’s maritime and territorial claims are wholly without merit and it is a virtual certainty that they were made at the behest of either Hezbollah or Iran or both.

While Lebanon’s navy is negligible and poses no threat to Israel and its off-shore gas platforms, Hezbollah does pose a more significant threat. Hezbollah possesses a number of Chinese C-802 radar guided anti-ship missiles. A missile of this type damaged an Israeli corvette, the INS Hanit, during the 2006 Lebanon War (the ship was repaired and returned to service 3 weeks later) and sunk a civilian Egyptian ship cruising some 37 miles from shore.

The police in the German city of Cologne recently arrested Mohammad J., a 16-year-old Syrian asylum seeker. He and his parents arrived in Germany in January 2016 and applied for asylum there – along with more than one million other aslyum seekers, most of whom were from the Middle East and North Africa. In Internet chats Mohammad J. expressed his “unmistakable willingness” to carry out a bombing attack, Klaus-Stephan Becker from Cologne’s Criminal Police claimed.

A chat partner from abroad gave him “clear hints” on how to make a bomb, Becker said. Yet no further preparations had been made by the arrested terror suspect. The Cologne police discovered that the suspect’s cell phone showed that he received instructions from “a person with links to ISIS who is living abroad.” This person succeeded in recruiting the 16-year-old Syrian asylum seeker.

Mohammad J. was not the only Syrian asylum seeker who was arrested quite recently. The well-informed German newspaper Bild reported on September 13, 2014, that the German anti-terror unit “GSG9” arrested three Syrian “refugees” in North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony (near Hamburg). They were 26-year-old Mohammed A., 18-year-old Ibrahim M. and 17-year-old Mahir al-H. The German federal prosecutor said that these three young Syrians arrived in Germany in November 2015, either with a pre-planned mission or waiting for further instructions.

Bild also quoted Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Hermann who said: “Meanwhile, we know now that ISIS deliberately profited from lapses in our security system and smuggled terrorists disguised as asylum seekers into Europe.” And German Interior Minister Thomas de Mazière said, according to Bild, that the three arrested Syrian asylum seekers were linked both to ISIS and to the ISIS terror cell that struck in Paris in November 2015. “They could have been a sleeper cell,” De Mazière said. He referred to so-called “Hit-Teams” smuggled into Europe by ISIS. “This is what happened when ISIS struck in Brussels and Paris.”

Mohammed A., Ibrahim M. and Mahir al-H. had first left Turkey on a boat loaded with refugees bound for Greece and subsequently followed the so-called “Balkan route” entering Germany in November 2015, Bild writes. They were assisted by exactly the same migrant trafficking organization that assisted the ISIS terrorists who struck in Paris last November. Their forged Syrian passports were also from the same forger in the Middle East.

Bild refers to security sources who claim that the German Federal Crime Agency (BKA) is now checking information about more than 400 ISIS or Al-Nusra extremists among the refugees in Germany. Lothar de Mazière said that preliminary proceedings have been initiated against 60 persons.