http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/a-brief-history-of-the-muslim-brotherhood As detailed in this writer’s previous column (“Our Achilles’ Heel” FSM, 1 August 2012), there exist numerous vulnerabilities in the security protocols of our nation’s most powerful institutions, including those of the federal government and the military. Not surprisingly, our adversaries have moved to exploit these weaknesses by infiltrating agents into these organizations; they […]
The Muslim Brotherhood, Part II – Haj Amin al-Husseini http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-muslim-brotherhood-part-ii-haj-amin-al-husseini The identity of today’s Muslim Brotherhood, in many ways, parallels the lives of just three influential men, who founded and shaped the Brotherhood as it grew into the largest and most-influential Pan-Islamic movement in the world today. The three men were Hasan al-Banna, Mohammed Amin […]
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/destroying-our-military-from-within?f=puball
If you want to know how President Obama feels about the U.S. military, consider that in all the years since D-Day 1945 there have been three occasions when a President failed to go to the D-Day Monument that honors the soldiers killed during the Invasion.
The occasions were:
1. Barack Obama 2010
2. Barack Obama 2011
3. Barack Obama 2012
For the past 68 years, all Presidents, except Obama, have paid tribute to the fallen soldiers killed on D-Day. This year, instead of honoring the soldiers, he made a campaign trip on Air Force 1 to California to raise funds for his reelection.
The U.S. military has been systematically weakened from within by a combination of idiotic and duplicitous decisions that suggest how far the nation has come from the fundamental understanding that an enemy must be destroyed with sufficient devastation as to never contemplate attacking us or our allies again.
World War Two was a success because both Germany and Japan were required to sign instruments of unconditional surrender. Both nations are now our allies. Even Vietnam where the U.S. blundered into a civil war and was ultimately forced to withdraw now has normalized diplomatic relations and welcomes U.S. investment.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/has-northeastern-university-done-its-homework-on-islamic-extremism Back in March, Northeastern University’s president, Joseph E. Aoun, was appointed to an academic board that advises the Department of Homeland Security on how American universities can contribute to antiterrorism efforts. Aoun told The Boston Globe: “We need more research and training related to security.” Ironically, Aoun’s own Northeastern campus may be an appropriate […]
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
There are two types of societies, production societies and rationing societies. The production society is concerned with taking more territory, exploiting that territory to the best of its ability and then discovering new techniques for producing even more. The rationing society is concerned with consolidating control over all existing resources and rationing them out to the people.
The production society values innovation because it is the only means of sustaining its forward momentum. If the production society ceases to be innovative, it will collapse and default to a rationing society. The rationing society however is threatened by innovation because innovation threatens its control over production.
Socialist or capitalist monopolies lead to rationing societies where production is restrained and innovation is discouraged. The difference between the two is that a capitalist monopoly can be overcome. A socialist monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it the full weight of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated into every man, woman and child in the country.
The Left’s Version of ‘Legitimate Rape’
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-greenfield/the-left%e2%80%99s-version-of-legitimate-rape/print/
The progressives have picked a spectacularly bad time to attack Republicans over insensitivity to rape. While the left continues its obsession with Todd Akin, its own hero, Julian Assange, is doing his best to avoid being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges.
The leading lights of the left have contributed to Assange’s defense fund and paid for his bail; which enabled him to flee prosecution and seek asylum in Ecuador’s embassy in London. Assange’s escape was made possible by bail money from leftist director Ken Loach, leftist socialite Jemima Khan and Maxim publisher Felix Dennis.
With the Assange case, the left has shown that it has its own version of legitimate rape. Prominent progressives have ridiculed Assange’s victims and claimed that the assaults on them did not constitute legitimate rape. Or as Whoopi Goldberg once put it, “rape-rape.”
Michael Moore, discussing the case where Assange raped a sleeping woman, told the BBC that the assault was only a “so-called crime” and suggested that it “wouldn’t actually be a crime if it was committed in Britain.” Moore has shown his faith in Assange’s legitimate rape by donating $20,000 to Assange’s defense fund.
Recently Michael Moore teamed up with Oliver “Hitler was misunderstood” Stone to write a New York Times editorial that claimed Ecuador’s refusal to hand over a rape suspect was “in accordance with important principles of international human rights” and ladled on conspiracy theories to avoid dealing with the fact that the left had chosen to back a progressive rapist over his victims.
Keith Olbermann went even further than Moore, retweeting a link from Bianca Jagger to an article written by a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier that named Assange’s victims and accused them of working for the CIA. UK Left-wing activist Craig Murray named one of the victims, prefacing his statement by saying, “Let us look at the conduct of these women.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/kenneth-levin/minority-elites-and-israel%e2%80%99s-jewish-defamers/print/
In a 1977 Supreme Court opinion, Thurgood Marshall, the court’s first African-American justice, observed, “Social scientists agree that members of minority groups frequently respond to discrimination and prejudice by attempting to disassociate themselves from the group, even to the point of adopting the majority’s negative attitudes towards the minority.”
Marshall further noted that “such behavior occurs with particular frequency among members of minority groups who have achieved some measure of economic or political success and thereby have gained some acceptability among the dominant group.” In fact, such behavior is particularly common within minority group elites more broadly; not only those to whom Marshall refers but also, for example, academic, artistic and journalist elites. In addition, it is more common not simply among those who have achieved elite status but also those who aspire to such status.
Of course, not all members of these elites within minorities embrace the wider society’s bigoted indictments of their own group; nor is the embrace of those indictments limited to the besieged community’s elites. But elites typically play an especially prominent role in this phenomenon.
In the context of Jewish experience, this has been a recurrent pattern throughout the history of the Diaspora and has figured in Israeli history as well. (Virtually all the psychological characteristics of minorities chronically denigrated, marginalized, and otherwise targeted by surrounding majorities are found as well within the populations of small states chronically besieged by their neighbors.)
The Oslo process of the 1990′s is illustrative. The path to Oslo was paved by journalists, academics, novelists, purveyors of other arts, and elements of the political elite who argued that the Palestinian-Israeli, and the broader Arab-Israeli, conflict remained unresolved because Israel had failed to make sufficient territorial and other concessions. If Israel would only return essentially to the pre-1967 armistice lines and were also more forthcoming in other ways, they argued, peace would be achieved. By the early 1990′s they had won about half of Israel’s population to variations of this view.
In doing so, they ignored the reality that throughout this same period, as well as in the wake of the initial Oslo accords of 1993, Yasser Arafat and his followers continued to tell their constituency that their goal was Israel’s annihilation and continued to promote terror to achieve that goal. During the years of Oslo, the editors and journalists of Israel’s three Hebrew dailies failed to report on the incessant defamation of Israel and calls for her extermination that permeated not only speeches by Arafat and his associates but broadcasts of Palestinian media more generally as well as sermons in Palestinian mosques and curriculum in Palestinian schools. The upsurge of terror that followed the initial Oslo accords was downplayed by the Israeli political leadership that had championed the Oslo process. Israeli academics, both immediately before and during the Oslo years, created a bogus “New History” that rewrote Israel’s past in a manner supporting the delusions of Oslo, the claims that Israeli missteps were perpetuating the conflict and Israeli concessions would resolve it. Israeli novelists, dramatists, film makers, as well as painters and others in the plastic arts, promoted the same delusions. A similar pattern of distortions characterized the work of many Jewish community leaders, journalists, academics, and artists in the Diaspora.
The reason so many Israelis followed the nation’s elites and embraced Oslo’s rationales is not difficult to fathom. Their doing so reflected the nation’s desire for peace and people’s wish to believe themselves in control of circumstances over which, in reality, they had, and have, no control. Both then and now, Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools purvey not simply the message that Israel must be destroyed but a broader, genocidal anti-Semitism. This is true as well in parts of the Muslim world beyond the Arab states. Peace will come only when internal political changes in these domains translate into abandonment of the drumbeat for killing Jews and annihilating Israel. It will come on the Arabs’ timetable. In fact, Israeli actions have little impact on this reality. Israel can neither appease its way to peace nor fight its way to peace. At best, it can deter aggression and suppress aggression when deterrence fails.
But for many, this lack of control over circumstances so central to their well-being is intolerable. The psychological response is like that of chronically abused children, who almost invariably blame themselves for their predicament. They choose to believe they are abused because they have been “bad” and that if they only become “good” the abuse will end. They do so, enduring the pain of the self-indictment, because the delusion preserves a sense of control over circumstances that are in reality beyond their control. Similarly, elements of minorities abused by the surrounding majority and small states besieged by their neighbors choose to embrace comparable delusions rather than acknowledge their helplessness to end their besiegement.
Even the dramatic upsurge in terror that accompanied the first years of the Oslo process had only limited impact on public support for the accords. It was not until Arafat, in 2000, rejected all compromise at Camp David, offered no counter-proposals, and instead launched his all-out terror war – which in the ensuing few years claimed another thousand Israeli lives and maimed thousands more – that Israelis in large numbers abandoned their Oslo delusions. Still more gave up their wishful thinking when Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 led only to more terror, much of it in the form of thousands of rockets targeting Israeli communities from the evacuated territory.
But hardly all Israelis have turned away from their Oslo delusions, and it is – perhaps even more than earlier – particularly elements of the elites that continue to embrace the argument, for example, that Israel does not require defensible borders. It is disproportionately members of the elites who insist return to the pre-1967 armistice lines will bring about a peace that will render “defensible borders” unnecessary, and that therefore it is Israeli intransigence that perpetuates the conflict.
RAYMOND IBRAHIM: THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION’S SHAMELESS EMBRACE OF GROVER NORQUIST THE ISLAMIST
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/a-disturbing-event-the-american-conservative-union-embraces-an-islamist/ The conservative movement appears to be at a crossroads in its approach to the threat of Islamic supremacism—not only abroad but at home. Does the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the dominant force of the “Arab Spring” bode ill for America? Or is the Brotherhood merely another “political actor” as the Obama administration […]
http://www.jidaily.com/1cc87
JUST CHECK OUT THE MEMBER NATIONS OF THE ARAB LEAGUE…..WITH THE PATHETIC EXCEPTION OF LEBANON WHICH HAS HAD BURPS OF DEMOCRACY THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRACY AMONG THEM AND THEY INCLUDE THE SHOWCASES FOR GENOCIDE LIKE SUDAN AND SYRIA….AND THESE ARE THE BARBARIANS FROM WHOM ISRAEL STILL SEEKS “RECOGNITION OF ITS RIGHT TO EXIST?”…DOWNRIGHT RISIBLE….RSK
This Week In History: The Arab League’s three no’s After Israel’s crushing defeat of its Arab neighbors during the Six Day War, Arab leaders meet in Khartoum and agree to “no peace,” “no negotiations” and “no recognition” of Israel.
On September 1, 1967, the Arab League summit delivered the “Three No’s” – no to peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. This declaration was passed as part of the Khartoum resolution, at a summit attended by eight Arab heads of state in the shadow of the Six-Day War, which saw Israel’s speedy defeat of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The conclusion of the war brought with it Israel’s occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
Following the war, Israel felt confident that the victory would pave the way for a peace agreement with its Arab neighbors that would include withdrawal of Israeli forces from the recently-conquered lands, suitable security arrangements and normalized relations. Then-defense minister Moshe Dayan famously said, “Israel is waiting for a phone call from the Arabs” while then-foreign minister Abba Eban asserted that “everything is negotiable.”
These false hopes were soon shattered by the now infamous words “no,” no” and “no,” uttered at the Arab conference in Sudan’s capital, chaired by then-Sudanese president Ismai’il al-Azhari. The summit discussed two main inter-related issues: “elimination of the consequences” of Israel’s victory, and the possibility of measures – including an oil embargo – against nations accused of supporting Israel.
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/4867/features/how-the-sinai-peacekeeping-force-staged-a-military-coup-in-fiji/?print
It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood black comedy. A tiny, poor, but democratic country decides to help its young men get jobs and see the world by joining international peacekeeping forces in the Middle East. The young soldiers serve in Lebanon and the Egyptian Sinai, return home, stage a coup, and set up a military dictatorship.
Except that it really happened. To Fiji.
Fiji is a Pacific archipelago that became independent in 1970 with a population of about 600,000. There were 300,000 Indo-Fijians, 255,000 Melanesian-Fijians, and 45,000 others. The Indo-Fijians had arrived as plantation labor at the end of the nineteenth century, but by the 1970s they ran most of the islands’ businesses. When Britain left, it bestowed on Fiji a constitution that protected both the rights and the traditional power structure of the Melanesian minority; courts judged Melanesians according to traditional laws, chiefs had seats in the Upper House of Parliament, elected seats in parliament were allocated by community, and the Prime Minister was a scion of a Melanesian chiefly family.
For almost twenty years, the island was held up as a “model multiethnic postcolonial democracy.” The reality was that Fiji was peaceful because of an informal understanding that Melanesian Fijians would run the government while Indo-Fijians ran the economy.
But in 1987 the Indo-Fijian majority elected an Indo-Fijian prime minister and the Melanesian Fijian minority responded with a coup d’état. The Economist, which had lauded Fiji’s multi-ethnic democracy, suddenly perceived that democracy in Fiji had “a hollow center: it did not include letting an election mean that you might have to hand over power to the opposition.”
The coup was led by Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who had served with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and with the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Egyptian Sinai. The civilian politicians were no match for the Colonel and his peacekeeping veterans from the Middle East, where Fiji has had a battalion deployed since the mission began in 1982.
To put this in its remarkable perspective, one must know that other Pacific Island nations don’t even have a military. Even in Fiji, aside from the policing activities of the coast guard, the armed forces have only two functions: to serve in international peacekeeping missions, and to stage coups d’état and run corrupt military dictatorships at home. In that last capacity, they have demonstrated particular panache. But if the United Nations had not inspired the creation of a Fijian army, Fiji would never have had a military coup.
There were lots of valid reasons for sending young men to serve in international peacekeeping forces. Fiji is a small place with few jobs, and the young people were leaving. Peacekeeping was honorable work, and the peacekeepers’ families could hope that they would come home after they had seen the world. But the program also appealed to Fiji’s pride in its traditional, if obsolete, warrior culture. For the Melanesian-Fijians who volunteered (few Indo-Fijians enlisted), it reinforced a self-image as warriors in much the same way that service in the IDF reinforces the warrior identity of Israeli Bedouin.
The Republic of Fiji Military Forces are a big deal in Fiji. Their numbers grew as the United Nations sent Fijians to Iraq, Sudan, and other conflict zones. When the Sinai Battalion gets stopped at a Bedouin roadblock, or a foreign diplomat says a nice word about them, it makes headlines in Fiji.
Fiji has had two new constitutions since the 1987 coup, a 1990 version written by the group that led the military coup, and a 1997 constitution featuring a preferential voting system designed to produce a democratic and bi-national state.
The 1997 constitution went into effect in 1999 and Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, grandson of an Indian contract laborer, was elected prime minister.
Having lost the election, ethnic Melanesians took to the streets overturning the automobiles and wrecking the businesses of Indo-Fijians. They installed Commodore Frank Bainimarama, a veteran of the Sinai MFO, at the head of a military government.
