Gun-toting children celebrating along with the adults they sedulouusly ape, declarations of "victory," and a Hamas bigshot telling Gazan Arabs, that Hamas would immediately start rebuidling its arsenal, making it bigger and better than ever, for the "final war of liberation."
And that is just in Rotherham, one small part of England. What's happened in Leeds? In Bradford? In Manchester? In Greater London? How many officials have been afraid to be accused of "racism"? And how many people will read the full report, and grasp how Muslims are taught to regard non-Muslims?
Around 1,400 children were sexually exploited in one town over a 16-year period, a damning report has said. The report on events in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 1997 and 2013 found that in more than a third of these cases the youngsters were already known to agencies. It said there had been "blatant" collective failures by Rotherham council's leadership.
Professor Alexis Jay, who wrote the report, said she found examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally-violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone".
Prof Jay said: "They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated." She said she found that girls as young as 11 had been raped by large numbers of men.
The report said failures of the political and officer leadership of Rotherham Council over the first 12 years she looked at were "blatant" as the seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers and was not seen as a priority by South Yorkshire Police. Prof Jay said police "regarded many child victims with contempt".
These failures happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham". She said the first of these reports was "effectively suppressed" because senior officers did not believe the data.The other two were ignored, the professor said.
The report said: "By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims." But, she said, councillors seemed to think is was a one-off problem which they hoped would go away and "several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist. . . Others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
I was watching the subtitled BBC lunchtime news, live from the press conference today. That was more specific; that the men were predominently of 'Pakistani or Kashmiri heritage'.
The report concluded: "No one knows the true scale of the child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."
And any group who raised the matter was shouted down as racist. The BBC reporter lunchtime raised the incident of parents who went to remove their daughter from a house where men were abusing her, and when the police were called, THEY were the ones arrested.
Rotherham Council leader Roger Stone resigned within minutes of the report being published . . .(he) said: "Having considered the report, I believe it is only right that I, as leader, take responsibility on behalf of the council for the historic failings that are described so clearly in the report and it is my intention to do so. For this reason, I have today agreed with my Labour group colleagues that I will be stepping down as leader with immediate effect."
But council chief executive Martin Kimber said he did not have the evidence to discipline any individuals working for the council despite the report saying there had been "blatant" collective failures by its leadership at the time. Mr Kimber was repeatedly asked to justify the decision to bring no disciplinary actions to anyone at the council at a press conference in the town. . . suggested the current employers of senior managers who have worked for Rotherham Council in the past should study the report carefully.
There were also calls for South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright to consider his position tonight. Mr Wright is a former Rotherham Labour councillor and was cabinet member for Children Services between 2005 and 2010.
Rachel E. Gross interviews Norman Berdichevsky in Moment:
While teaching modern Hebrew in England and the United States, Norman Berdichevsky got a shock. Many of his students, he found, “were unable to utter a sentence in the modern language”—despite having attended Hebrew school at their synagogues for four or five years. “In modern Israel, they would be functionally illiterate,” Berdichevsky says. The experience led him to write a book on the topic, which came out last month: Modern Hebrew: The Past and Future of a Revitalized Language.
Stateside, many still equate Hebrew with its rabbinical counterpart, the purview of bar mitzvahs and synagogue prayer. In Israel, the story is different. In the 1880s, early Zionists sought to adopt a modernized version of the ancient biblical language. Most believed it couldn’t be done. Today, Israeli Hebrew has become the most successful language revitalization project in history. It is the language de facto, used in every realm of Israeli life, from education to business to picking up groceries.
How did Hebrew rise to precedence, despite opposition by the ultra-Orthodox and the scoffing of linguists who said it could never succeed? Berdichevsky spoke to Moment about the transformation of a biblical language and the rift between Hebrew-speaking Israelis and Jews living abroad. –Rachel E. Gross
Where does the term “Hebrew” come from?
The word Hebrew in Hebrew is “Ivrit.” It comes from the book of Jonah, when Jonah is asked where he’s from and he responds, “Ivrit, anochi”: I am a Hebrew. That term became intimately associated with the name of the language, and with the development of a distinct culture from what had previously been the vehicle of Jewish hallways, Yiddish.
How did the movement to establish Hebrew as the national language for a nation of Jews begin?
Even before 1880, there were attempts to mold Hebrew into a national language. One individual led the way in the late 19th century to combine the change of the language with the adoption of a new sense of nationhood in Palestine by immigrating there himself: Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. He slowly gathered a number of sympathizers, who began the epic transformation to modernize the language. This was vociferously objected to by the ultra-Orthodox, who had come to regard Hebrew as a sacred tongue and believed that using it for any secular purpose was heresy. This view persisted until basically 1900, when many of the new settlements established by Zionist pioneers had come to accept and utilize Hebrew as a secular language. It was given a huge shot in the arm when it was adopted by Technion, the technical college in Haifa, which replaced German with Hebrew in 1913. That was an initial step that made the world aware that Hebrew was a language fit for all the uses of the 20th century. By 1925, when Hebrew University was inaugurated, there was no debate that Hebrew would be the language of instruction in all fields.
What are a few obstacles modern Hebrew has had to overcome?
Linguists had denied that it was possible. There was no other example. Attempts to reintroduce Latin as spoken language, or the Irish struggle to revive their language—none succeeded. No other people was able to do this to the extent of Hebrew. It was not just a matter of vocabulary. A whole society had to be built involving every level of education, every occupation, every profession. In 1910, a number of visitors came to and visited the agricultural settlements. They asked the children, “What are those flowers?” The children answered, “Flowers don’t have names.” They had not created the names of those flowers.
What major updates did Zionists have to make to biblical Hebrew?
The language had to change radically. Biblical Hebrew has a vocabulary of about 7,000 words, of which maybe 1,000 or more are totally obscure. It was totally unfit even for the end of the 18th century, let alone the 20th century. An educated Israeli today has a vocabulary of at least ten times that. There are also significant differences in the structure and grammar of the language. For instance, if you look at biblical Hebrew the tenses are completely out of joint; the past and the future mix in the same sentence, for stylistic purposes. Modern Hebrew also established a standard pronunciation that didn’t exist before. Today there’s no more confusion over the tenses: There is a past tense, a present tense and a future tense just like in English. Hebrew has been molded into the format of an Indo-European language, even though it was originally a Semitic language.
Why should we care about modern Hebrew?
In world terms, it’s a minor language. There are only 7 million speakers in Israel, plus half a million ex-Israelis. But consider that, in 1880, not one individual in the world spoke Hebrew as a first language—as the language learned at home from infancy from their parents. There were zero. Today there are 7 million. In terms of growth, you could say that modern Hebrew is the fastest-growing language in the world from 1880.
Why is it considered a “dangerous” language?
First it was considered dangerous by the Orthodox, who feared that this language would eventually be used for every purpose, to write cheap novels, to put as tattoo slogans on your body, to advertise prostitutes, to write pornographic novels. All of these things they predicted have come to pass, because it is a language today like any other language.
In the Soviet Union it was actively persecuted for 70 years. No books, no magazines, because the Communist party condemned Zionism and with it Hebrew, which they said was artificial and could not represent the proletariat, the working class. They said that all Jews were being given the chance for a national existence through the Soviet nationalities policy, which recognized Jews as a nation only with Yiddish as their official language.
The refusenik movement in the Soviet Union began with the intense desire by many Russian Jews to learn Hebrew. They had to petition, they had to organize. It was not taught in any school. There were penalties for using any public facility for teaching it. Those who were suspected of teaching Hebrew, which was outlawed in all public institutions, were often regarded as suspicious and charges trumped up to imprison them on all kinds of other accusations. From 1922 or 23 until the 1970s, Hebrew culture was suppressed throughout the Soviet Union.
How has the lack of a common language separated Jews abroad from Israelis?
During my last term teaching Hebrew, the celebrated Israeli singer and song writer Arik Einstein died. This was an entertainer as successful as Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash combined. His passing in Israel was a national occasion for mourning. Yet 90 percent of my students didn’t know who he was. So Jews are divided into two separate cultures, two separate societies by language. The Jews abroad in the diaspora, whether they’re sympathetic to Israel or not, don’t participate in the same culture as Israelis. Whereas Israeli Arabs, whatever their political views, share in the same national culture to a considerable degree.
How has Hebrew impacted the non-Jewish community in Israel?
Non-Jews in Israel, especially the Arab minority, have considerably absorbed Hebrew. Sixty percent or more are able to use Hebrew in their professions. As paradoxical as it may sound at the present moment, Hebrew is often preferred to Arabic because Arabic suffers from a number of severe problems: division into dialects and a lack of textbooks and a standard literary language. Many Israeli-Arabs prefer textbooks in Hebrew. Whatever you may hear about the difficulties in the Arab minority, I’m convinced the majority would not want to live in an Arabic-speaking Palestinian state, where their career opportunities would vanish overnight.
He sums up what he knows, has learned, about Muslims, and their treatment of Christians living in lands that were once theirs, before the Arab conquerors and raiders came, here. At one point he inadvertently tranposes two adjectives, speaking of "Western evil and Muslim stupidity" when he clearly meant to say "Western stupidity and Muslim evil."
In a recent article, jihadi cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud, a prominent writer on jihadi forums, expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of the Islamic State (IS). Bin Mahmoud wrote that beheading was an effective way to terrorize the enemies of Islam, and stressed that, under Islamic law, Foley was a harbi, i.e. a non-Muslim whose life was not protected by an agreement of protection. He argued further that Islam allows and encourages such acts, since it is a religion of war and fighting.
The following are excerpts from the article, as posted August 21, 2014 on the Shumoukh Al-Islam forum.
"All Scholars… Agree On The Permissibility Of Killing A Harbi Infidel"
"I don’t know what to say. My mind is perplexed by words I have read and heard from people whom I do not know how to describe!! Millions of Muslims have been killed, tortured and driven from their homes; tens of thousands of Muslim women have had their honor violated and have been sexually abused by the Americans – yet people are weeping over a Christian American harbi infidel who entered the Islamic State, knowing full well what the Islamic State is, and without a pact [of protection]. Were the soldiers of the Islamic State supposed to pat this American harbi on the back and smile at him? All scholars, without exception, agree on the permissibility of killing a harbi infidel, and agree that his blood and property are fair game. Most of them [also] agree on the permissibility of killing him if he is taken prisoner. So where does this condemnation of the IS come from?... Let it be known to all people that when a harbi enters the land of Islam without a legal pact [of protection], his property, life and progeny are fair game.
"Many Muslims are influenced by the West’s false views and its repulsive ideas, which are exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it and change the perception of its youth so that [the youth] become cowardly and subdued and abandon the means of power and terror, and thus create a generation that does not know fighting or the cutting of necks. Recently we saw some who are considered scholars mixing things up and deceiving the nation, changing the concepts of Islamic law to fit the plans of the enemies. We don’t know if they did this out of ignorance about some of the tenets of Islamic law, or were [simply] lying..."
"Beheading A Harbi Infidel Is A Blessed Act For Which A Muslim Is Rewarded"
"Chopping off the heads of infidels is an act whose permissibility the [Muslim] ummah agrees on. Beheading a harbi infidel is a blessed act for which a Muslim is rewarded. The [only] matter scholars disagree about is the question of transferring the head from one place to another, traveling with it and carrying it around…"
Bin Mahmoud: Jews, Christians, Shi'ites And 'Alawites Who Committed Crimes Against The Muslims Must Be Beheaded
After clarifying that he is opposed to killing Muslims, bin Mahmoud continues: “As for beheading infidel Jews, Christians and ‘Alawites, as well as apostate Shi’ites, who commit crimes against the Muslims, they must be terrorized, filled with fear and beheaded without any respect. Cutting off heads is part of the tradition of the [Prophet's] Companions. In the Koran Allah ordered to smite the infidels’ necks and encouraged the Muslims to do this. He said [in Koran 47:4], 'When you meet those who disbelieve on the battlefield, smite at their necks until you have killed and wounded many of them…
"How many hadiths [relayed by] the Prophet’s Companions have we read in which they demanded that he strike the necks of certain men, and the Prophet did not condemn the striking of necks… Striking necks was a well-known matter that did not elicit any condemnation in the eras of the Prophet, the rightly-guided caliphs and their successors, right until the time of the Christian occupation of the Muslims’ lands in the [20th] century. Those crusaders fought the Islamic legal concepts, distorted the religion, and convinced the Muslims that their religion is a religion of peace, doves, love and harmony, and that there is no blood in it, no killing and no fighting. The Muslims remained in this state until Allah revived the tradition of beheading by means of the mujahid and slaughterer Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, may Allah have mercy upon him and accept him as a martyr."
"Islam Is A Religion Of Bloodshed"
Bin Mahmoud goes on to quote a long list of texts which, according to him, prove that Islam condones beheading as a means of terrorizing the enemy, and then emphasizes once more that Islam is not a peaceful religion, since its essence is jihad and martyrdom. He concludes that "Islam is a religion of beheading":
"The truth is that what distorts the image of Islam is not the beheading and terrorizing of infidels, but rather those who want [Islam to follow the path of] Mandela or Ghandi, with no killing, fighting, brutality, bloodshed or the striking of heads or necks. That is not the religion of [the Prophet] Muhammad son of 'Abdallah who was sent [to fight] with the sword [until] Judgment Day. The only Koranic surah that is named after him, Surah Muhammad, is [also] called 'The Surah of Fighting'…
"Islam is a religion of power, fighting, jihad, beheading and bloodshed, not a religion of turning the left cheek to whoever slapped you on the right cheek. On the contrary, it is a religion of breaking the hand that is stretched out to humiliate the Muslim. [Any Muslim] who fights for his property, blood or honor is a martyr.
"In Islam, tourism [means] jihad for the sake of Allah… There is no true life for its believers except through jihad, [and] the goal of its fighters is to die for the sake of their religion…"
Again the question comes to the fore, who is the most benign terrorist of them all? Khaled Meshaal, the political leader of Hamas, in an interview on August 22, 2014 in his gated unmarked office in Doha, Qatar, far from the madding crowd of Gaza, claims the title. He never did acknowledge, let alone thank, Israel for saving his own life when the Mossad in Amman in September 1997 saved him from being ambushed by his opponents.
Meshaal, trying to distance Hamas from ISIS, described the differences. Hamas was not a violent religious group. It was against killing civilians, including journalists, whether American or not.
It is true there are some, if not six, degrees of terrorism between ISIS and Hamas. Four degrees are particularly important. One is that ISIS has billions of dollars to support the Caliphate it has established and its war against the infidel West. Hamas has only millions of dollars given by the “international community” and by Qatar that it has wasted on buying rockets and missiles to fire against Israel, and on building the elaborate 30 or 40 underground tunnels intended to kidnap civilians and soldiers and to attack Israeli towns.
A second more important difference is that ISIS fights openly in an equivalent of an effective military earthquake, wears its own uniforms, and has conquered substantial amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria. Hamas fights by using civilians as human shields, and by firing its rockets and missiles from hospitals, mosques, apartment houses, and schools supposedly under the supervision of an international body, the UNRWA. Its members are prone to wear Israeli uniforms if they can get them.
A third difference is that ISIS attacks and kills all those who will not accept its faith and jurisdiction, irrespective of race, religion, color, and nationality. Hamas has only one, a more limited, objective, to kill Jews and to eliminate the State of Israel. Their only grievance is that the State of Israel exists. They are uninterested in any two-state solution. They are keen to play the anti-Semitic card and the ritual blood libel charge. In a broadcast on Al-Quds TV on August 5, 2014 the Hamas spokesman repeated charges he had made earlier that Jews killed Christians to mix their blood to bake matzos.
A fourth distinction is that ISIS publicizes what it does, including the nature of people it has killed and the nature of its brutal beheadings. Hamas is notorious for its deliberate falsifications, and inaccurate figures of casualties, as objective journalists now know.
Yet, Mershaal is wrong. Hamas and ISIS are similar entities, Islamist extremist groups springing from the guidance of the Muslim Brotherhood. The degree of their brutality and ruthlessness is indistinguishable. The horror of ISIS is now recognized internationally after the beheading of American journalist James Foley. The horror of Hamas should be equally recognized.
First, its objectives, stated both in the Hamas Charter and by its leaders, including the political leader Ismail Haniyeh, should be acknowledged. They assert, “we will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Palestine.” For Hamas, Palestine is from the sea to the river. To achieve this result the gun “is our only response to the Zionist regime… no compromise should be made with the enemy.”
Tactically, Hamas puts its own civilians at risk by using them as human shields. Of the more than 4000 rockets and mortar shells fired against Israel in 2014, more than half have come from civilian areas, including at least two schools run by UNRWA. Hamas has also brutally beaten Gaza civilians who leave their homes after Israelis have warned them of attacks. Astonishingly, Hamas appears, for public relations purposes, to want Palestinians to die in their homes,
After denying it for several months, the Hamas leadership finally on August 21, 2014 admitted it was members of Hamas in the West Bank who were responsible for the kidnapping and coldblooded murder of three Israeli teenage students, though its political bureau originally denied that it had approved the incident. The religious figure Sheikh Saleh a-Arouri, praised the murder as “a blessed heroic action.”
The Hamas leadership similarly not only acknowledged but was proud to show the world that it had executed 21 people “suspected” of spying for Israel. It is instructive that these individuals were not tried or convicted in any court of anything. Nevertheless, 11 were executed at a police station, and seven, heads covered and hands tied, were shot by masked men outside a mosque. At least two of the victims were women.
The danger of Hamas is increasing. It is more sophisticated militarily than previously believed, as shown by the large number of tunnels it built since it has been the occupier and controlling government of the Gaza Strip. The sophistication is even more apparent now that Hamas has shown it is able to identify the time and place of visits of Israel political and military leaders to areas near the Gaza Strip. They have fired rockets and mortar shells at kibbutzim when officials were visiting. Whether information about those visits is being leaked to Hamas, or whether they are carefully observing Israeli military activity and movement in the area, is open to question.
It should be the policy of the U.S. Administration and of the democratic countries of the world to react to the Islamist ruthlessness of Hamas and its refusal to stop the onslaught against Israel. Two other things are relevant. In the continuing turmoil of the Arab world, one thing is clear, the fact that the country of Qatar is the main sponsor of Islamist terrorism in the world. As a result of manipulation and some corruption Qatar was awarded the honor of being the host of the FIFA World Cup, the influential football tournament, in 2022. The U.S. administration should take the lead in attempting to rescind the award unless Qatar ends that sponsorship of Hamas.
Also, in view of the strange demand by Hamas that the Palestinian Authority go to the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israel for war crimes, retribution can be taken. This demand gives the U.S. and other freedom-loving countries the opportunity to indict Hamas for the war crimes it has committed. Hamas must not be allowed to continue its path of destruction and to leave Israel and the world in fear.
Foreign Muslim clerics who preach hatred in Dutch mosques and who glorify terrorism face deportation, social affairs minister Lodewijk Asscher says in Monday’s Telegraaf. Imams with Dutch nationality will also be stopped from preaching, Asscher told the paper.
‘If an imam from Syria wants to preach here and does not have peaceful intentions, he will not get a visa,’ Asscher said. ‘We will also make the lives difficult of Dutch imams who grew up here and spread hatred.’ The decision tackle so-called ‘hate imams’ is part of a wider programme to counteract the radicalisation of young Dutch Muslims, Asscher said. One of the great freedoms we enjoy here is freedom of religion, . . . But that should not be abused. We will make the life of hate imams difficult, and where we can, impossible.’
Ministers lose vital link to mosques as pressure alienates Muslim group
The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (Minab) was founded with ministers’ backing in 2006 to create core standards and promote good governance in mosques and Islamic centres. The group has now stopped receiving public money after refusing to bow to government pressure to sever links with certain groups.
Mustafa Field, an adviser and spokesman for Minab, said that it had “very, very limited level of engagement” with ministers. . . “The relationship became difficult because they were not comfortable with some of our members,” Mr Field said. “They wanted us to cut ties.” Minab, whose members include the East London Mosque, which has come under fire for hosting radical preachers, felt unable to do so.
Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne Source: Getty Images
Yesterday, the usual restrained, moderate informative format of the Lisa Benson show ended in an uproar. The kerfuffle was over the refusal of incumbent Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne to recognize the stealth jihad agenda of the Gulen Movement here in the US. Horne, a former Democrat is in the final days of a fractious Republican primary that ends Tuesday amidst accusations of alleged abuse of office encompassing campaign funding and resignation of former aides objecting to questionable practices. This has resulted in investigations by the FBI and his own department’s Solicitor General. The New York Times article, “Legal Woes Pose Hurdles for Attorney General Tom Horne of Arizona in Campaign” chronicled Horne’s problems in a mid- July 2014 article indicating that he had been abandoned by luminaries in the State Republican Party over accusations of questionable practices. His opponent in the primary battle, Mark Brnovich is making much of these accusations. Horne’s presence came as a result of a call from his campaign office requesting time to defend his support of the Gulen science and math academies. We had Nidra Poller back on the program to address the blood libel of the Al Dura affair. That concerned the 55 second video on France 2 TV news of the faked death of a 12 year Palestinian youth, Mohammed al Dura, on September 30, 2000 in Gaza. That fostered a slogan used by Osama bin Laden to justify the Al Qaeda 9/11 attack that still appears in pro-Hamas protests across Europe and here in the US during the current Gaza war, "Israel murders Palestinian children." Poller is the author of Al-Dura: the long range ballistic myth.
When the matter of Turkey came up in the discussion with Attorney General Horne, this writer discussed the background of how Sufi Sheikh Mohammed Fethulleh Gulen came to be a resident alien in a fortified compound in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. This followed his flight from prosecution by the then secular Turkish government in 1998. We also noted his 2008 US Department of Homeland Security immigration hearing and support from a number of leading figures in the Islamic and US political firmament. Those endorsements came from the likes of former President Clinton and Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University Center for Muslim Christian Understanding endowed by Saudi billionaire Prince Talal. We also discussed the contretemps between Turkey’s newly elected President, former Premier Recep Erdogan and Sheikh Gulen over massive charges of corruption by the former. These two had been allies ousting the long term secular rule of Turkey’s military and political parties in the tradition of Kemal Ataturk, first President of the Turkish Republic. Sheikh Gulen is said to control a fortune estimated at over $25 billion, including media outlets, such as Turkey’s leading news daily, Today’s Zaman. Erdogan has been a supporter of Hamas, ISIS and al Qaeda affiliates and engaged in gold for gas schemes with Iran stifling US and EU attempts at sanctioning the Islamic Republic ‘s nuclear development program. He is often referred to as the rising Sultan of the new Turkish Caliphate. Not to be upstaged, Gulen has been characterized as the most dangerous Islamist in the world because of the GM’s Hizmat (service) control of nearly 80 percent of enrollment in Turkey’s preparatory schools, as well as the global network of GM controlled academies.
Both Erdogan and Gulen are united in opposition to Israel, once an ally to Turkish secularists and now accused of “enslaving Palestinians in Gaza.” Both were particularly incensed over the May 2010 assault on the Turkish vessel the Mavi Marmara during which Israeli naval commandos killed 8 Turks and one Turkish American that tried to pierce the Gaza blockade. The Mavi Mamara is owned by a global radical Muslim charity based in Turkey, IHH that has supplied funds and weapons to both al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.
Nidra and I drew attention to Turkey as a questionable member of NATO, whose request for entry to the EU had been rebuffed for years over charges of human rights abuses and denial of due process under the 11 year term of Erdogan and his party’s super majority in the Turkish Parliament.
But the main issue was the world wide network of 1,100 GM Schools in over 100 countries. In the US there are more than 135 GM charter schools with an enrollment exceeding 50,000 in more than 26 states, 12 of which are in Arizona. All are funded by taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. We noted the private investigations that had been conducted in 12 states and the FBI raids on GM schools in Louisiana and Illinois over abuses of students and other allegations. We discussed legislation passed in Tennessee and under consideration in Louisiana and Mississippi. See our June 2011 presentation, Unveiling Gulen Schools in Tennessee. Those legislative proposals contain restrictions on the proportion of foreign workers brought in under the HB 1 visa program as administrators and faculty at charter schools specifically targeting the abuses by the GM operated science and mathematics academies. We told how state legislators were often enticed by free trips to Turkey to sample the cuisine, culture and vibrant economy of the country. GM US academy sponsoring groups have also made contributions to the political campaigns of state legislators in those jurisdictions that have granted charter licenses.
A caller drew attention to a report on a GM Sonoran academy in Tucson that Attorney General Horne had visited in his capacity as the former Superintendant of Public Instruction for Arizona, an elected post. Lisa Benson cited pamphlets that she found extolling the virtues of the GM movement, Turkish nationalism and the Sheikh’s version of Islam. However, she also evidence of rejection of genocide. At that Attorney General Horne interjected saying that was concerning Armenian genocide and not the holocaust. Horne who is Jewish said that he came from a family of Shoah survivors and had relatives in Israel. Horne is a graduate of both Harvard University and its Law School. Doubtless, he should have known that Hitler who fomented the murder of six million European Jewish men, women and children, predicated the final solution of the Holocaust based on the West’s indifferent reactions to the plight of millions of Armenians lost in the Ottoman jihad death marches during WWI.
He justified his defense of the GM academies in Arizona by the academic performance of Gulen charter school students. Moreover, given the history of Jews during the holocaust, he indicated that it was unseemly to criticize another religion, in this case, Islam. Notwithstanding, the presentation of information we provided on the GM academies in the US and the stealth jihad agenda of the GM doctrine propounded by Sheikh Gulen, he saw nothing that would cause him to investigate their operations in Arizona. This is notwithstanding the evidence of both state and FBI investigations in other jurisdictions. Lisa Benson noted that he endorsed the Gulen schools even after she presented him with open source information that they supported him when he was Superintendent of Public Instruction in Arizona. Horne suggested to Benson that he wanted to focus on the charter schools run by La Raza rather than on Gulen. La Raza is an extremist Latino group were fostering rejectionist views of America replete with posters of Argentine Cuban icon, Che Guevara were the problem du jour for Horne.
Horne told Benson that, “I am not soft on Islam issues, but I don’t see anything wrong with Gulen.” Yet he would not admit that Islam could be so overt and obvious. My co-host Lisa Benson reacted angrily to Horne’s comments. Horne came with an agenda to yesterday’s program. It was to put both he and his GM supporters in Arizona in the best possible light. As I said in an after program dialogue with both Benson and Attorney General Horne, he came with a closed mind not to engage in meaningful dialogue. Problem is that he evinced no curiosity about the evidence presented. That was not his purpose; it was trolling for votes in a hotly contested Republican primary for the top law officer position in Arizona.
Listen to the podcast of the Lisa Benson Show of August 24, 2014 with Nidra Poller and Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne.
It seized planes, MIG-21s. People say ISIS doesn't have pilots to fly them. But are there no Muslims anywhere in the world to fly those MIG-21s in the path of Allah? We'll see.
It seized radar systems, useful if Syrian planes are trying to bomb you.
And it seized MANPADS, of an advanced kind, which can be distributed far and wide, to be used not only against Syrian planes, but against American and Israeli and British and French planes too, and civilian as well as military aircraft. Imagine what a MANPAD could do if it were to be in the hands of a determined Muslim just outside Kennedy Airport, or Reagan, or Heathrow, or Charles De Gaulle?
After the video -- enraging Brown's parents, who are preparing a civil suit and want to keep up the gentle-giant business for as long as they can get away with it -- comes this article about Michael Brown. You have to read the lines, and then between the lines. And then you get the picture.
Around 50 Italians have been recruited by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (Isis), the majority from non-immigrant families, Italian media reported. The majority of the young “foreign fighters” were converted to Isis’ extreme ideology online and subsequently travelled to Syria and Iraq, Corriere della Sera said.
The vast majority - 80 percent - are from Italian families, while a minority are the second generation of immigrant families. The men are mostly aged between 18 and 25 and come from northern Italy. Bologna, Turin and Padua were named as some of their home cities, although some foreign fighters have also come from Rome and Naples.
Quoting Italian intelligence, Corriere reported that Italian Isis members are used to supply logistical assistance and recruit new fighters in Italy. They are indoctrinated before being transferred to Iraq and Syria, the newspaper said.
Vienna has become a hub for European jihadists who plan to join extremists at war in Syria, because it is easy to travel to Syria through the Balkans, according to a report in Der Standard newspaper. Nine suspected Chechen jihadists who were arrested in Austria on Wednesday had planned to use this route.
"The conflict in Syria is attracting foreign fighters from all over Europe to Austria. The route to Syria is simple and safe,” a report from Austria’s Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism (BAT) said
Around a quarter of people travelling from Austria to Syria are Austrian nationals, "who have family members in Southeast Europe and the Western Balkans." As many as 130 people from Austria are believed to be fighting as jihadists abroad. More than half of Austrian-born jihadists come from the Caucasus region and have a valid residence permit in Austria. The rest are mainly Bosnian and Turkish-born.
Turkey plays a significant role in Islamist networks - as it is relatively easy to cross the border into Syria, and has links to the controversial Millî Görüş movement, which is also active in Austria.
The BAT report notes that jihadists who return to Austria represent a particular threat: "After returning from the war zone with battle experience, having had traumatic experiences and associated behavioural changes, and having deepened their radical beliefs present a significant security risk for Austria." The worry is that they will set up centres for recruiting new jihadists.
John R. Schindler, a professor of national security affairs at the US Naval War College, writes in a recent blog post that “for years, Vienna has served as the de facto base for Islamist extremists from Southeastern Europe, a place to recruit, raise and hide funds, and radicalize, thanks to Austria’s permissive laws and weak enforcement mechanisms. It’s an exceptional terrorist or Salafi radical in Bosnia who has not spent some time in Austria.”
The beheading of James Foley demonstrates the utter obscenity of the Metropolitan Opera’s decision to schedule the opera “The Death of Klinghoffer” in its current season. The very title of the Klinghoffer opera is a lie. The opera is not about the death of Klinghoffer. It is about the murder of a helpless old Jew confined to his wheelchair and thrown into the sea with his wheelchair. Nevertheless, the issue isn’t only about anti-Semitism. It is also about the gratuitous killing of innocent victims to make a political point in an ongoing war. Will the Met now commission an opera about the beheading of James Foley? Of course not! But is there really any moral difference between the killing of a helpless old man confined to a wheel chair and a helpless younger man?
One of the aims of the opera is to present the motives of the Palestinians for the murder. Shall we now have a dramatic or operatic presentation of the grievances of ISIS for their beheading of James Foley? Again, of course not, but by presenting the opera, the Met seems to be insisting that there is an imperative to understand the murder of a helpless Jew.
Ultimately, responsibility for going ahead with the opera rests with Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager. Originally the opera was going to be broadcast in HD to the many outlets that exhibit the Met’s operas around the world. Gelb has now half backed down. According to the New Yorker magazine, the opera will only be presented at the Met. Mr. Gelb has said that he doesn’t believe the opera is anti-Semitic but, because of the increased anti-Semitism in Europe, the opera will not be broadcast.
Perhaps the Met ought now to commission an opera about the beheading of James Foley. Since Mr. Foley is not Jewish, the motives of the perpetrators could be presented without worry about European anti-Semitism.
Perhaps the best solution would be for Mr. Gelb to be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.
From a television interview conducted by Candy Crowley with Peter Westmacott, British Ambassador to the United States:
Let me ask you about the huge number or what is too many numbers of Westerners. We learn that, you know, proportionately, there are a large number of British Muslims - I think "USA Today" first wrote that there are more British Muslims with ISIS than there are in the British military.
Why is that?
WESTMACOTT: I think, in each case, every country where we have got Muslims who take up jihad and go off to that part of the world, you have got to look a little bit at the origins of the communities that we have got in our own country. Perhaps one of the reasons why we have got hundreds from the United Kingdom is that we have got lots of historic links, of which we're very proud, with South Asia, and we have got many families who have come from there and have remained linked to what's been going on in that part of the world.
But, of course, we had - initially, the whole jihad thing began with the mujahideen in Afghanistan. We have had issues of al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan. We have now got people in Iraq and Syria. They have moved around from many different countries.
But I think that all different Western countries which have got these significant communities of immigrants who have come from that part of the world unfortunately have a very small number who have been misguided enough or radicalized or brainwashed enough to start taking up this cause, which is not what the rest of our Muslim colleagues in our own countries believe in, far from it.
For example, the Muslim Council of Britain has come out very firmly against this activity."
These remarks -- I've put them in bold -- could not possibly have been made bythe British Ambassador if he had taken the time to acquire, as so many of those in authority in the Western world now have a duty to acquire, reasonable familiarity with the Qur'an (which means reading it with intelligent commentaries, by Muslims or non-Muslims) the Hadith (and being able to distinguish the levels of "authenticity" to which the thousands of Hadith have been assigned), and the Sira (the biography of Muhammad). And it also would be a good idea to acquire some knowledge of the history of Muslim conquests, over the past 1350 years, of vast land areas and many different non-Muslim peoples, and of what happened to those many different non-Muslim peoples under Muslim rule. If he had done so, he might not be so easily soothed by the assurances he's apparently been given, by Muslim leaders in Great Britain, who "have come out very firmly against this activity" (oh for god's sake, what did you expect them to do? And how many examples of this kind of hollow assurance, with no details at all as to why, exactly, those who join ISIS have misunderstood Islam, when the texts, and the example of Muhammad himself, overwhelmingly support those who, as with ISIS, want to take their Islam straight up? Why should anyone believe assurances from Muslims living in the West, who in so other ways show their lack of loyalty and inability to integrate, when these assurances are so transparently meant to head off any trouble, until Muslim numbers have grown so much that they think they no longer have to practice taqiyya and kitman, for the gullible peter-westmacotts of this world.