The Islamic State, Pace Al-Abadi, Is A Muslim Problem
Al-Abadi, the Shiite leader of Iraq has complained that something he calls "the world" should do more, more, more for Iraq. He's unwilling to accept any blame himself for the defeats inflicted by the Islamic State, neither for the apparent confusion, cowardice, disarray of whatever forces the Iraqi state sends to meet the foe, nor for the treatment, by his and earlier Shi'a governments, of the Sunnis who, disaffected, support mildly or ferociously the Islamic State. That's not surprising -- blaming others, finding even a "conspiracy" against this or that group of Muslims, comes naturally to Muslim minds, unwilling to entertain, even for a minute, the idea that there might be something for which Muslims should be blamed or, still more unthinkable, that Islam itself explains the many failures, political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral, of Muslim states and societies.
But of greatest interest, I think, is the following excerpt from Al-Abadi's latest remarks:
"Abadi himself called for more from his partners, saying most IS fighters were foreign and therefore an "international problem".[but every IS fighter, from wherever he comes, is a Muslim -- doesn't this make it a "Muslim problem"?]
"There is a lot of talk of support for Iraq, there is very little on the ground," he told reporters before the Paris meeting.
He said that roughly six out of 10 IS fighters were foreign, with the remainder Iraqi.
Iraqi Shiite fighters from the Popular Mobilization units hold a position on the Tharthar frontline …
The international community has to explain "why so many terrorists are from Saudi Arabia, why so many from the Gulf, why so many from Egypt, why so many from Syria, and Turkey and from European countries?"
Abadi continued: "There is a lack of intelligence, we are trying very hard on our part but this is a transnational organisation... This is a failure on the part of the world."[No; it's a failure -- or is it rather a success -- of the Sunni Muslims who, as Al-Abadi well knows, to his own chagrin and that of his Iranian allies, regard the Shi'a as Infidels, for the "takfiris" are not a small group, but represent mainstream Sunni attitudes]
Who could have predicted that electing a Dinkins aide whose only calling card was viral videos made by his obnoxious son and junkie daughter running on a 70s platform of class warfare, racial tensions and empowering criminals would backfire?
As his first month as police commissioner under Mayor de Blasio winds down, Bill Bratton is already facing some sobering news — a 33 percent spike in murders across the city.
All polls and even informal observations by well-connected people confirm that the world’s opinion of the United States as a serious world power has eroded markedly. As President Obama and his entourage and imperishable following persevere in their conviction that this president’s benign championship of non-intervention, arms control, and giving rogue states the benefit of the doubt is winning hearts and minds to a new conception of a kindly, detached America, it is clearer every week that this administration’s foreign policy is contemplated with astonishment and contempt by practically everyone else. The Europeans, putative allies — a fact that, since the U.S. abandoned isolation, has meant a ready preparedness to have the U.S. liberate them from the Nazis and then protect them from the Soviet Communists, but means almost nothing now — are almost uniformly incredulous at the syncopations of recent American foreign policy. more>>>
Police have arrested a ninth man on suspicion of rape and sexual grooming following raids in Oxford this morning. More than 100 officers carried out the dawn raids at eight properties across the city.
The force had arrested eight people as a result, and this afternoon confirmed a ninth man, 34 and of no fixed abode, had been arrested. The others were two 36-year-olds, a 29-year-old, a 31-year-old, a 44-year-old, a 45-year-old, a 33-year-old, and a 37-year-old.
Thames Valley Police said the offences related to female victims in Oxford between 1999 and 2007 and involved indecent assault, engaging in sexual activity with a child, sexual grooming, and rape. It added it was investigating about 60 offences in connection with this operation, code-named Sabaton.
Police said five of the suspects were Pakistani and one was Bangladeshi. Another two were also Asian and one did not declare his ethnicity to officers. Neighbourhood patrol teams have been deployed in the area to answer questions among local residents...
FOUR men who took advantage of a vulnerable 13-year-old and cynically “sexually corrupted” her have been jailed for a total of 51 years. Tariq Islam, Nasir Sultan, Amir Zaman and Zafar Iqbal are among ten men found guilty of a range of serious sexual offences committed against the youngster in the Beeston area of Leeds.
Jailing the men, judge Geoffrey Marson, QC, said: “(the victim) was systematically abused, in some cases by men who knew each other and exchanged their experiences with each other which no doubt led to further sexual abuse. Over a period of more than six weeks I have had the opportunity of observing the defendants and hearing their evidence. Not one of them has uttered a single word or sentiment of remorse. Their only concern is that they have been caught and brought to justice.”
The girl in this case was a Muslim girl. So there isn't the element I suspect the defendants use when abusing a white English girl that she is 'spoils of war and occupation - a possession of the right hand' but some Muslim men are not noted for treating their own daughters, sisters and nieces with care.
Amir Zaman, 25 , of Sefton Terrace, Beeston, was jailed for 11 years after being convicted of four offences of sexual activity with a child. The jury heard he was the first to abuse the girl after tricking her into believing she was his girlfriend despite being nine years older than her and being married with four children. Maybe as a Muslim girl she was happy to be under consideration as Number 2 wife?
Zaman took the youngster to a graveyard where sexual contact took place. Zaman went on the run before the case came to trial and is still at large. The court heard he may have fled the country.
The judge added: “Although these offences were committed in the Beeston area, it is not to be taken as a condemnation of those who live there. There are many good, honourable and decent hard-working people in that area. It is the defendants who have brought shame upon themselves and the community.”
Six other men are to be sentenced at a later date.
Knife-Wielding Suspected Boston Terrorist and Brother Tied to Radical Mosque
Following news that a Middle Eastern man was shot dead Tuesday morning after threatening law enforcement, the suspected terrorist’s brother has come forward to claim that his sibling is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Usaama Rahim, who had been under surveillance by the Boston Joint Terrorism Task Force, was shot dead by a police officer and an FBI agent after Rahim refused to put down a “large knife and ignored repeated commands to drop the weapon,” officials said. The officials initially confronted Rahim, law enforcement told local media, after having received “terrorist-related information” on him.
In a statement posted on social media Tuesday, Imam Ibrahim Rahim, the brother of Usaama Rahim, alleged his younger brother was “shot 3 X in his back by Boston Police then dying His last words I can’t breathe [sic].”
After hearing Rahim’s account of what happened, The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamic group with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, has described the incident as a “police killing.” CAIR has taken to social media to promote the hashtag, #Justice4Usaama.
While the younger Rahim’s ties to potential terrorist activity has not yet been revealed by investigators, the elder Rahim’s assertions may be called into question due to his own ties to a radical mosque and militant Imams. Imam Rahim is listed as a teacher at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, a known hotbed for aspiring jihadists.The ISB, which made headlines as the religious home of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers, was later revealed to offer attendees a young Muslim education program with a curriculum replete with extremist texts.
Following the Boston Marathon bombing, Imam Rahim linked up with terror-connected Imam Suhaib Webb to organize the Muslim community. The Boston Globe reported at the time that Ibrahim Rahim had been “strategizing for days” to provide a coordinated response from the Muslim community of Boston in order to ensure that the bombers’s acts were distanced from Islam.
Suhaib Webb serves as the Imam of the Islamic Society of Boston, which falls under the same organization as the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Outside of the Boston Marathon bombers, members of Webb’s congregation have included a plethora of convicted terrorists during his tenure. Additionally, Webb was once a close friend of deceased al-Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki.
From Saudi Arabia to Sydney, Australia to Iraq - Yet Another Devout Young Muslim Man Goes Jihad
And everybody is scratching their heads and wondering how and why this devout young Muslim - who being from Saudi Arabia would surely have been steeped in orthodox Sunni Islam from birth - would do what he did.
"Radicalised in Sydney, Student Dies in Iraq Suicide Blast'.
Slaying and being slain for the cause of 'allah. 'Radicalised' = heeding the summons to wage jihad. - CM
'A Saudi Arabian student believed to have been radicalised while living in Sydney (that is: "A young Muslim man from Saudi Arabia who is believed to have been recruited for jihad by other Muslims whilst studying in Sydney" - CM) has become the third suicide bomber to die in Iraq for Islamic State.
Even Saudi Arabia, his country of origin, was not madly, deeply, purely Islamic enough for him...- CM
'Meshaal Suhaimi, who lived in Sydney for a year before vanishing last September, has reportedly been identified as an Islamic State suicide bomber who targeted a Shia militia stronghold in Ramadi.
'The attack took place days after Jake Bilardi, a teenage convert to Islam from Melbourne, drove a car bomb into an army base in the same city (that is, in Ramadi - CM).
'Suhaimi's family in Saudi Arabia have told Arabic media outlets they believed Suhaimi had been radicalised while living in Australia, where he had been studying English as part of a scholarship program, after which he planned to study at university.
A scholarship. Awarded, and paid for, by whom? - by a Saudi entity (government or non-government) or by Australia? I'd like to know. Because we certainly shouldn't be offering 'scholarships' to any Saudi Arabian Muslim to come to Australia. And even if they are rich enough - which they are - to pay through the roof for tuition here, we shouldn't be letting them in: their presence in our schools and universities is dangerous, not only because the host institutions - as a flood of Muslim 'students' pours in - come under all sorts of pressure to accommodate myriad and ever-escalating Muslim demands for this and that, but because the non-Muslim students are exposed either to the lethal smiles and wiles of Muslim dawa (which includes deliberate 'marriage jihad' or 'love jihad' targeting naive Infidel girls who haven't read "Not Without My Daughter" or Chesler's "My Afghan Captivity") or the nastiness of Muslim misogyny and general aggression. If this bloke had never been given a student visa in the first place, he would be Saudi Arabia's problem, end of. - CM
'One photo of Suhaimi's life in Australia shows the young man standing on the kerb of a suburban Sydney street and giving the thumbs-up to the camera.
So? That tells us exactly nothing. - CM
'Suhaimi is believed to have flown from Sydney to Malaysia on September 20, on his way to the conflict zone.
'He was reported missing on October 6  after he stopped attending classes, failed to answer phone calls from his family, and a friend in Sydney found that he was not at his apartment.
"He is young...and he is a conservative Muslim", his brother Mohammed Suhaimi told the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television network last year.
"He is a conservative Muslim". Stop right there. Because that is all that needs to be said. The more devoutly orthodox a Muslim is the more likely to Go Jihad, given half a chance. - CM
'A few days later, after being alerted to his disappearance, Saudi Arabia's embassy in Canberra released a statement that said it had immediately contacted Australian authorities about Suhaimi and it was confirmed he had left the country.
One wonders how close a watch the House of Saud - and for that matter, any other Islamic entity, such as it might be Iran, or Qatar, or Malaysia, or Indonesia - keeps on those persons from their part of the Dar al Islam who are visiting the Dar al Harb. After all, they must sometimes wonder whether such persons might not, in the relative freedom of the West, be tempted to apostasise and defect to the Camp of the Infidels. - CM
'Little was known about his situation until Islamic State's propaganda unit in Iraq's Anbar province released photos of Suhaimi, whom they identified as Abu Muawiya al-Jazrawi, sitting in a ute laden with barrels of explosives, and of a large explosion.
'According to the captions, "Abu Muawiya" drove the vehicle towards a Shia militia post in the inner-city al-Andalus suburb of Ramadi on March 14 [that is, March 14 2015 - CM].
'One photo shows Suhaimi, dressed from head to toe in white, speaking to an unseen man while sitting in the driver's seat of the ute, while another shows a massive explosion that appears to have demolished a wall.
'According to news reports, pro-jihadi Twitter accounts claimed "dozens" of Shia fighters had been killed or injured in a suicide bombing in the suburb, but media outlets reported that few - if any - fighters died.
'After a long campaign punctuated by suicide bombings, Islamic State captured Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, on May 14.
'Melbourne teen Adam Dahman (that is: "formerly-Melbourne-resident Muslim Adam Dahman" - CM) is believed to have become the first Australian suicide bomber (that is: "the first Aussie-passport-holding suicide bomber" - CM) when he died (that is, "when he immolated himself" - CM) in Iraq last July.
Click on the link. There are Comments, 25 so far. Most boiling down to something like "good riddance".
One less headache for ASIO and AFP.
Might be a good idea, though, to find out what mosque or mosques he attended in Sydney, and whether he was part of a Muslim student group and what it got up to and who was instructing it; and investigate, thoroughly.
Meanwhile, a word to our government, and to those educational institutions that are dazzled by fee-paying students from Muslim lands: it isn't worth the risk. Just stop. Now. No more Muslims, please. Not as "students", nor as "businessmen" nor as "tourists" nor as "refugees" nor as immigrants. Not . one. more. Because sooner or later some of them, or more than some, will Go Jihad. And some will do it here, rather than in places like Iraq and Syria. - CM
His brother, an imam living in California, has publicly claimed that his brother Usaama was shot in the back three times, while talking on the phone with his father. There is video showing clearly that Usaama Rahim continued to ignore the warning of a police officer and an FBI Agent, and proceeded toward them with a large, military knife. Will the brother be charged for his false and dangerous statement, or will he be allowed to get away with having lied so recklessly?
It's important not to continue to let people get away with making false statements about the behavior of the police. .
More than 1.3 million Muslims have been brought into the US via the billion dollar US Refugee Admissions Program (US RAP). Annually the US RAP brings in 70,000 refugees allotted by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR). These annual USRAP allotments are virtually controlled by the UNHCR, which designates refugee populations most at risk. The current USRAP allotment exceeds that of all other countries combined. Separate from the US RAP are other legal avenues for Muslim immigration that include the asylum program that converts illegal border crossers into legal immigrants with benefits equivalent to refugees, the Diversity “Green Card” Lottery and the investor EB-5 Visa Program.
According to Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch (RRW) blog, this UN refugee agency “virtually calls the shots” for the US RAP that provides legal refugee immigrants with a veritable smorgasbord of cash welfare, Social Security benefits for elderly refugees, Medicaid, educational assistance and a pathway to ultimate citizenship. Including both federal and state level benefits; some experts estimate that the annual total cost of the US RAP could be upwards of $12 to $20 billion annually.
Geert Wilders was appalled today, when he learned that the Dutch immigration authorities spent nearly $1 billion (868 million Euros) on support of asylum seekers in 2014 reported by the NLTimes:
The Netherlands spent 868 million euros ($972.2 million) on services for roughly 24,000 asylum seekers last year, according to figures Security & Justice Secretary Klaas Dijkhoff provided to …Freedom Party (PVV). The party leader, Geert Wilders, blasted the amount, saying it translates to roughly 36 thousand euros ($40, 320) per asylum seeker.
“Madness!” Wilders proclaimed on Twitter, in a call to shut Dutch borders.
The government spent 485 million euros ($542.3 million) on the COA, the Dutch agency responsible for the reception and placement of refugees. Another 200 million ($224 million) went to the Immigration and Naturalization Office, which all immigrants entering and residing in the Netherlands are required to contact. Over 70 million ($78.4 million) went to the Repatriation and Departure Service, which also handles the extradition of criminals to other nations.
It was not immediately clear if the amounts provided to those agencies are only for their work directly related to asylum seekers, or if it is broader budget data.
Also, while some 56 million ($62.7 million) went to investigative and research services, about 26 million ($29.1 million) was earmarked for free legal representation of asylum seekers.
Dutch NGO Nidos also received 24 million euros ($26.9 million) to provide education, welfare and guardianship services to youth refugees. Another NGO, Vluchtelingenwerk (Refugees), received 6.3 million euros ($7.6 million) to help with integration, reunification, and asylum service. Other organizations received 700 thousand euros ($784,000).
Those amounts cited by Wilders are just for asylum seekers in the Netherlands. Expenditures for legal migrants under the liberal Dutch immigration programs may be several magnitudes greater than that. That could raise this year’s allocations by the EU, dealing with the flood of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean. Moreover, there is the allocation of thousands of Syrian refuges escaping the civil war and ISIS conflicts. This is the latest revelation by the Freedom Party.Wilders is endeavoring to rein in out of control spending for what amounts to mass Muslim and other EU immigration. Note that like the US RAP, the Dutch use a network of NGOs, equivalent to voluntary agencies here in the US, to provide processing and support for asylees. Time to roll back the Islamic Dir al Hijra (migration) strategy both in the Netherlands and here in the US costing billions of dollars bringing jihadis to foment Islamic terrorism both at home and abroad.
CINCINNATI – The new head of the FBI's wide-ranging Cincinnati division says the threat of homegrown terrorists in her native state is surprising and scary.
Angela Byers became special agent in charge of the office that covers 48 of Ohio's 88 counties in late February, just after back-to-back arrests of young men in Cincinnati and Columbus in separate cases alleging they were plotting attacks in the United States. Both have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Byers told The Associated Press in an interview she was surprised at the threat level in Ohio, and she suspects many people in the Midwest don't realize that "violent extremists" can pop up anywhere.
"It's scary. And it's scary to us. I'm not sure the general public quite gets the gravity of it," she said.
She said counterterrorism efforts are ongoing in her office, although she couldn't comment on any possible other cases.
"It seems like once we get one guy, another guy pops up high on the radar," she said. "We just keep moving from one to the next."
The cases that broke this year in her division were the arrests of Christopher Lee Cornell, of suburban Cincinnati, on charges he planned to attack the U.S. Capitol, and Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, 23, of Columbus, accused of planning to attack a military base or prison after returning from terrorist training in Syria.
Mark Ensalaco, the director of human rights research at the University of Dayton, who has written about Middle East terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks, said trying to detect homegrown "lone wolves" before they act is "a nightmare for national security." But he said use of confidential informants and federal electronic surveillance can raise concerns about protecting citizens' rights.
Byers said she knows people are worried about privacy, but said the FBI has legal parameters to meet before it would monitor suspected "bad guys." Electronic surveillance also has limitations because of the extremists' use of secure and encrypted communication channels.
"So it's more important than ever now for us to get cooperation from the public," she said, adding that family and friends are more able to recognize changes in behavior, adopting of radical views and support for terrorist groups and acts.
Why America’s Presidential Elections Miss the Point by Louis René Beres (June 2015)
Plato’s Republic endures as a celebrated touchstone of classical political thought. Here, attentive to what was once known as the Western Canon, college freshmen read hopefully about a “philosopher king." This figure of reason and righteousness was cast to be an exemplary political leader - in Plato's own time, the chief executive of a polity like Athens - one who would deftly combine real learning with virtuous governance. more>>>
What happened is this: a Muslimah, hijabbed, aggressive and with a long record connecting her to the most obviously unsavory characters, including the Muslim Brotherhood, was given -- like tens of millions of passengers every year -- a can of coke which had been already had its little metal tab pulled off, before being given to a passenger, by a member of the airline's crew. One of the sounds one can easily summon up is that of the stewardess coming slowly down the aisle -- when, oh when will she reach me? -- and you can hear the trays being passed out, and the sound of the tabs coming off, one by one, for those who ask not for water or wine but for the tertium quid, beyond either con- or trans- substantiation, of coca-cola or something similar. It's obvious why that Opening of the Can is official policy, followed all the time, tens of thousands of times a day, by all airlines. A pulled-off tab can be used as a weapon, might even be used to cut someone's throat. And a full unopened can of coke is heavier, doesn't lose its fluid, could be used to hit someone with -- it is indeed plausible to think of it, in the right hands, as a weapon. The hijabbed complainer whines that when she asked for an "unopened can" for "hygienic reasons" (what does that mean? that the stewardess was, as a non-Muslim, disgustingly unclean, najis? Let's talk about the Muslim view of Infidels a bit more in the context of this case, shall we?). she was told it was against the rules because -- she quotes -- "you can use it as a weapon." She claims that the "you" was directed at her, specifically, as a Muslim. But even if she has quoted correctly, and not made it up, the use of the word "you" does not mean "you" but, colloquially, and all the time, "one," "anyone." Examples of this are: "You could lose your shirt if you invest in penny stocks." "You won't go wrong if you try that restaurant." "You have to watch out for deer crossing the road." And so on. Ms. Ahmed, looking for trouble and making it, perhaps simply does not comprehend English. The phrase -- even if it was used, which is not at all clear -- "you could use it [the can of unopened coke] as a weapon" means "an unopened can of coke can be used as a weapon."
The immediate organizing by Muslims of a campaign of whipped-up fury and cries of a boycott leave one only with one impression": this is one more example of a sustained campaign, by Muslims in the United States and all over the advanced West, to make it seem that they are being vctimized, and to weaken the legitimacy of the perfectly reasonable surveillance of Muslims in this country. The observable behavior, and attitudes, of Muslims all over the West, and in Muslim lands, too, toward the remaining non-Muslims who may still have to endure life in such places, has generated justified suspicion and hostility. If, in addition to that observable behavior, one were to add a knowledge of the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples in the lands conquered, one's suspicion, hostility, and alarm would be even greater. And if in addition to a knowledge of that observable behavior, and that historical record, one were to add a knowledge of what is containted in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, one's alarm, suspicion, and permanent hostility toward the adherents of Islam would grow and grow.
I don't think it should be left at that. I think the airline should sue Ms. Ahmad, for whipping up, quite baselessly, hostility toward the airline, and attempting to cause it economic damage for simply enforcing the rules (as for the supposed comment, made by a passenger, that she should, as a Muslim, "shut the fuck up" --the evidence for that having occurred is only Ms. Ahmad herself, and in any case, did it happen, has nothing to do with the airline's policies nor is the airline responsible in any way) put in place for the safety of passengers. She should be made an example, so that this kind of thing is not attempted by other Muslims, trying to manufacture an incident. If the airline, on behalf of itself and all the other airlines being similarly besieged, won't sue, then perhaps at the very least this dangerous lady can be put on a No-Fly List by the government. That will not end, but will decrease the frequency, of such incidents. And we can all breathe a sigh of grim relief.
A Sikh, deeply misinformed about Islam -- no knowledge of how Sikhism itself originates in the desire to create a fighting faith (and not just a warrior caste, like the kshatriya, in Hidnuism) that could fight the Muslim overlords in India, nor about the history of Muslim depredeations and murder of Sikhs (in Pakistan, right up to the present) -- was put up to the job to celebrate the "proud diversity" that is supposedly affirmed by the Supreme Court decision. (Perhaps the writer is forgetting about Islam altogether, and thinking only of possible limits on the wearing of turbans. But a turban does not bear an aggressive message, and anyone coming into Heathrow, and seeing those Sikh turbans, breathes a sigh of relief, knowing that the Sikhs, at least, are going to be sufficiently wary of Muslim passengers and are less likely to put up with the nonsense that others may endure).
There are those non-Muslims in the West who would never knowingly give their custom to a Muslim-owned business, or to a store (shop) where a Muslim worker is obviously visible. Is that an act of baseless bigotry or a perfectly understandable act? Is it unreasonable to hold Muslims to knowledege of what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and to be aware of what effect that has on the minds of Muslims? Even if not all Believers or Identifiers with the faith agree with or act on what is inculcated, by merely continuing to identify themselves as Muslims, by demographically swelling Muslim ranks, by obscuring or deflecting attention from the texts and teachings of Islam, they promote Islam, protect Islam (even silently), and make the Western world safer for Islam. They are aiding, and what's more abetting, the spread and then the dominance of Islam. In such circumstances, in the West, there is no reason to pretend that the Abercrombie decision is just fine, and that you would be happy to visit an Abercrombie store, or any other store, where a bearded man with short pants, or a woman in a hijab, is waiting to wait on you.
And should I, should you, be forced to hire someone for our own one-man or tiny shops -- Abercrombie is a big chain -- if we owned such shops, someone who now, by calling himself a Muslim, is telling us that he believes that what is in the Qur'an -- including the more than 100 blood-curdling Jihad verses -- comes from God, He Who Must Be Obeyed.
Israeli Gen Yossi Kuperwasser on Obama's Unrealistic View of Israelis
Israel Gen Kuperwasser (ret.) Former Director General
Ministry of Strategic Affairs
Source: Honest Reporting
Gen. (ret.) Yossi Kuperwasser is an Israeli Intelligence expert and former Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. He wrote Jeffrey Goldberg, these remarks following the latest Atlantic interview and Obama's appearance at Goldberg's synagogue in Washington, Adas Israel on Friday morning, May 22nd. The President received applause from the 1,200 who attended his address , a day prior to the Shavuot Jewish holiday. Shavuot celebrates the reading of the law by "Moshe rabbenu' ( Moses the teacher) before the assembled Exodus multitude gathered under the Mountain. Perhaps the President had that it mind on the occasion of his address to the assembly of Washington Jewish notables at Adas Israel who like Goldberg profess to be "progressives" like the President. After all, Obama said that many in the audience considered him the equivalent of "the First Jewish President." Others distant from Washington, like our colleague Dr. Richard l. Rubenstein; noted theologian, former university president ,author of seminal works on post holocaust period,including Jihad and Genocide consider Obama "the most radical President ever." To Goldberg's credit, he published in the latest edition of The Atlantic Kuperwasser's 'realistic" views, as an Israeli expert of record, contrasting them with the President's "optimistic" views . I have to thank my friend Pat Rooney here in Pensacola for sending me them. Coming as they do before tonight's airing of an interview with the President of Israel Channel 2 extolling his view why the P5+1 deal with Iran is in Panglossian terms - the best of all possible options. A deal considered a bad one by a bi-partisan panel of former Senators, ex-CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and experts from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in an update from the Iran Task Force on Capitol Hill, yesterday. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius 'considers the current P5+1 deal "useless" as both he and Gen. Hayden know that nothing will be verifiable as the fissile material will be hidden at military sites that Iran's Supreme Ruler has denied access to UN IAEA inspectors. I posted on my Facebook page yesterday this comment that may reflect what many Israelis and Gen. Kuperwasser may believe about the President:
Obama says there is no military option, but a tough verifiable deal for Iran's nukes. When asked if PM Netanyahu would exercise a military option, he said "I wouldn't speculate." He also suggested he "understood the fears and concerns" of Israelis. When this airs on Channel 2 in Israel Tuesday night the silence will be deafening. This President does not have either Israel's or this country's back in dealing with an untrustworthy Islamic Republic of Iran."
President Obama’s anger toward Netanyahu is misplaced, especially given his extraordinary lack of criticism of Palestinians for far more egregious behavior. The Palestinians, after all, are the ones who refused to accept the president’s formula for extending the peace negotiations. It is Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) who have called for “popular resistance,” which has led in recent years to stabbings, stonings, and attacks with cars and Molotov cocktails against Israelis. Since the PA ended the peace negotiations, there has been a sharp increase in attacks and casualties in Israel. Hamas, for its part, openly calls for the extermination of Israelis and sacrifices a generation of children towards that goal.
In response to these threats, all the president had to say at Adas Israel was that “the Palestinians are not the easiest of partners.” Rather than recognizing how fundamentally different Palestinian political culture is, the president offered slogans about how Palestinian youth are just like any other in the world. This is a classic example of the mirror-imaging—the projection of his own values onto another culture—that has plagued most of his foreign policy.
This excerpt from the president’s speech in Jerusalem in 2013 is emblematic of his mirror-imaging, and the problems with that perspective:
“… I met with a group of young Palestinians from the age of 15 to 22. And talking to them, they weren’t that different from my daughters. They weren’t that different from your daughters or sons. I honestly believe that if any Israeli parent sat down with those kids, they’d say, I want these kids to succeed; I want them to prosper. I want them to have opportunities just like my kids do. … Four years ago, I stood in Cairo in front of an audience of young people—politically, religiously, I believe that they must seem a world away. But the things they want, they’re not so different from what the young people here want. They want the ability to make their own decisions and to get an education, get a good job; to worship God in their own way; to get married; to raise a family. The same is true of those young Palestinians that I met with this morning. The same is true for young Palestinians who yearn for a better life in Gaza.”
Yes, we want a prosperous life for our neighbors, but unlike the president’s daughters, there are some Palestinian children who are educated to have a completely different set of priorities. Our core values are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this world, but Hamas proclaims “We love death more than you love life.” Happiness will be reached in the next world, according to the Hamas ideology.
So why does Obama pick on Netanyahu and not on Abbas? The most likely reason is directly related to a conflict in the West between two schools of thought, both dedicated to defending democratic and Judeo-Christian values: Optimism and realism. Obama is a remarkable proponent for the optimist approach—he fundamentally believes in human decency, and therefore in dialogue and engagement as the best way to overcome conflict. He is also motivated by guilt over the West’s collective sins, which led, he believes, to the current impoverishment of Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. He believes that humility and concessions can salve the wound, and Islamists can be convinced to accept a global civil society. “If we’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us,” Obama thinks.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, is a realist. Due in part to Israel’s tumultuous neighborhood, he has a much more skeptical attitude of Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian President Rouhani’s government. Netanyahu does not see these groups as potential moderates, willing to play by the international community’s rules; instead, he acknowledges their radicalism, and their intent to undermine a world order they consider a humiliating insult to Islam. The major difference between the Islamists and the extremists, according to Netanyahu, is one of timing. The Islamists are willing to wait until the time is ripe to overthrow the existing world order.
Western realists worry that optimists are actively aiding Islamists in the naïve hope that they will block out the extremists. The realists believe that a resolute stance, with the use of military force as an option, is the best way to achieve agreed-upon Western goals. Obama both prefers the optimist approach and believes that his hopeful dialogues will achieve the best possible outcome. Netanyahu, on the other hand, whose nation would feel the most immediate consequences from Western concessions, does not have the luxury of optimism.
This helps explain why Obama targets Netanyahu for criticism. The prime minister’s insistence on the dangers of the optimist approach threatens to expose the inherent weakness of Obama’s worldview and challenge the president’s assumption that his policy necessarily leads to the best possible solutions. For Netanyahu and almost everybody in Israel, as well as pragmatic Arabs, the president’s readiness to assume responsibility for Iran’s future nuclear weapons, as he told Jeffrey Goldberg, is no comfort. The realists are not playing a blame game; they are trying to save their lives and their civilization. To those who face an existential threat, Obama’s argument sounds appalling.
Does it make sense for Israel—in the face of an aggressive Iran, the rise of Islamic terror organizations across the Middle East, and the fragmentation of Arab states—to deliver strategic areas to the fragile and corrupt PA, just to see them fall to extremists?
Should Israel at this moment aid in the creation of a Palestinian state, half of which is already controlled by extremists who last summer rained down thousands of rockets on Israel, while its leaders urge their people to reject Israel as the sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people? Should it aid a movement that follows these five pillars: 1) There is no such thing as the Jewish people; 2) The Jews have no history of sovereignty in the land of Israel, so the Jewish state’s demise is inevitable and justified; 3) The struggle against Israel by all means is legitimate, and the means should be based simply on cost-benefit analysis; 4) The Jews in general, and Zionists in particular, are the worst creatures ever created; And 5) because the Palestinians are victims, they should not be held responsible or accountable for any obstacles they may throw up to peace?
In short, even though Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, remains committed to the formula of “two states for two peoples, with mutual recognition,” the implementation of this idea at this point is irrelevant. The PA’s poor governance and the general turmoil in the Middle East render any establishment of a Palestinian state right now unviable. President Obama admitted as much, reluctantly, but continued to criticize Netanyahu instead of betraying his optimist paradigm. Netanyahu’s realism would stray too far from the path Obama, and other Western leaders, have set in front of them. But while Obama and the optimists offer their critiques, Netanyahu and the realists will be on the ground, living with the consequences the optimists have wrought.
Dr. Salim Mansur: Hearing of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
Dr. Salim Mansur
University of Western Ontario
May 28, 2015
Topic: Division 2 of Part 3 of Bill C-59 (Passport Revocation)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Standing Committee:
I want to begin with thanking you for inviting me to this hearing.
I come before you as an academic. I am not a lawyer. I am a scholar, writer, and student of politics, history, culture in general and of the world of Islam in particular. I am Canadian, Muslim by faith, husband and father, and I have been deeply involved in public affairs nationally and in my community. I come from not only within the Canadian Muslim community, but literally my family and I come from within the wreckage of the Muslim world. We are the fortunate ones, those of us who found home and all that it denotes in Canada.
But the Muslim community in Canada is not insulated from the troubles raging in the world of Islam, just as Canada is not insulated from those troubles as they reach our shores. The Canadian Muslim community is faced with immense challenges as its members seek to adapt to the politics and culture of a liberal democratic society that their history never prepared them for. The Muslim community is deeply troubled, even bewildered, as it is torn by demands of faith and loyalty of the world they left behind and of the country they now call home.
The Muslim community, especially those within who are spoken of as “moderate” Muslims, needs help, but they are losing the struggle against those within the community who are engaged in apologetics and will not condemn by name, for instance, Hamas or Taliban or the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood, or those who preach the virtues of jihad as holy war incumbent on Muslims as part of their religious belief instead of demanding its end. “Moderate” Muslims find themselves besieged inside the Muslim community by the apologists of radical Islam or Islamism who oppose any reform within Islam that ends gender inequality between men and women, ends discrimination against homosexuals, minorities, dissident Muslims or ex-Muslims. Unfortunately, those within the Canadian Muslim community who indulge in and promote the victimhood narrative are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslim youth; and then to add insult to injury, these same apologists of Islamism are received by the broader Canadian community as spokespeople for Canadian Muslims in general.
Muslims are not in any danger in Canada. Speaking here as a Muslim, we are not under attack by Canadians, our faith is not endangered, nor do we, as Muslims, face any discrimination in Canada; instead, it is the opposite, those of us who speak out against Islamism, against the false narrative of Islamophobia and victimhood, against jihad, against Muslim anti-Semitism or Judeophobia that rages across the Muslim world and right here in our midst in Canada, we are under attack by the self-appointed leaders in mosques and within the Muslim community for being disloyal to their version of politics dressed as religion. In my faith to be so vilified is a mark for injury and death.
As someone who might be designated as “moderate” or “dissident” Muslim, yet someone who has the pulse of the Muslim community both here and abroad, I am here to support the spirit and intent of the bill before this committee that will see passports revoked, if the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect a terrorism act is likely to be committed.
The act as proposed allows individuals the constitutional right to challenge such decisions in court, and the judge will have the discretion to appoint “a friend of the court” to act on their behalf if the judge believes it is necessary. My colleagues on the panel have served in such capacity, and I defer to their legal expertise. I will speak in broader terms about the issue before us.
The state has a right to protect the integrity of its citizenship. Some may argue that having a passport is a “Charter” right; but there is no “Charter” right to be participating in acts, which are reasonably believed to be by the Minister and the courts as “preparatory” to committing a terrorism offence. Those with such intent, if it can be confirmed, should not only lose their passports, but more effort should be made to charge them under section 83.01 of our Criminal Code.
While “reasonable grounds” to believe someone is about to commit a terrorist offence is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is still sufficient, in my view, to see to it that these individuals are charged and brought before the court to be prosecuted and if the evidence stands then convicted for violating the laws of Canada. Charges are deterrent.
We need to see the laws, which have been passed by Parliament fully enforced by the RCMP. So far, they have been too soft on jihadists and those who want to be jihadists. It is dismaying to ask of some 90 individuals who were seeking to join ISIS how many were charged under our Criminal Code? Similarly, of some 80 individuals who have returned from supporting terrorism abroad – materially or as a party to a crime – how many have been charged, prosecuted and convicted? And of the 145 individuals known to be abroad, how many of them have been charged in absentia?
In a post-9/11 world when we as Canadians refuse to come to grips with radicalization within our schools, our mosques and the Muslim community, then is it too much to demand of our government that if there are reasonable grounds, which will be examined in court, to believe that someone is about to commit a terrorist offence that someone should be indicted for terrorism under the provisions of our Criminal Code?
Today our secular, liberal, modern, democratic politics and culture are under siege. In such circumstance to indulge political correctness that denies there is a dark side within the Muslim community means denying the sort of assistance the Muslim community needs to embrace without reservation Canada as their home. Such assistance will only be forthcoming when it is made amply clear to that community that there is no preferential treatment of any community or people in Canada, and that the rule of law in Canada means those who break the law will face prosecution and if found guilty will be duly sentenced.
There is something to be said in praise of tough love when we are educating our children to be responsible citizens. The Muslim community in Canada needs tough love to save it from itself, or from its own demons, in these dire times for Muslims globally. This Bill C-59 is one more step in the direction of putting together the right mix of tough love in dealing with those individuals who view being Canadian is a matter of convenience.
The U.S. conducted 7,319 sorties over Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in the first four months of 2015. Of those, only 1,859 flights — 25.4 percent — had at least one “weapons release,” according to data provided by United States Air Force Central Command. That means that only about one in every four flights dropped a bomb on an Islamic State target.
There have been reports of frustration by US Air Force, Navy and Marine pilots engaged in the ISIS air campaign who have acquired targets and yet been commanded to stand down from attacking them. That has led to criticism of the Administration ISIS air war from Members of Congress, most notably, Sen. John McCain who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee cited in the WT report:
The Arizona Republican said at a hearing this year that missions that don’t drop bombs needlessly put American pilots in danger and that U.S. boots on the ground would produce better intelligence that could lead to more effective bombing missions.
The level of air sorties in the US-led coalition air war is far below those of Gulf Wars I and II and even the Balkan Air campaigns during the Clinton era. The question is what is causing this? Many believe it is the restrictive rules of engagement to spare civilian lives, when ISIS fighters move among columns of civilians, effectively using them as human shields. Further, some analysts ironically believe that these strict rules of engagement actually contribute to civilian casualties by to ISIS. Perhaps this also reflects the misguided Obama Administration obsession in both avoiding collateral damage and avoiding putting special teams on the ground to provide better target intelligence.
Israel Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel
Source: Times of Israel
Perhaps, the Central Command planners and air war commanders might best heed Israeli Air Force Commander Major General Eshel who was cited in a Defense News article saying:
"We have an offensive capability that is unprecedented and extremely significant which we've been developing over years and are now able to implement.
"In small wars, it's a very significant challenge for us to reduce collateral damage on the other side when the enemy is using all he has to elevate the damage we're forced to inflict on him," Eshel said.
"First of all, it's a moral challenge. ... It sounds like a slogan, but we are constantly thinking, planning and operating with this challenge in mind."
The demonstration of that approach was what occurred in Operation Defensive Edge against the Hamas rocket and terror tunnel war threatening Israel when the IAF F-16’s flew missions in attacks against urban targets with precision guided 1 ton bombs within 250 meters of IDF troops. The key is precision strikes based on precise intelligence.
Note these debates about the Pentagon handling of the ISIS air war campaign in the WT article:
Former US Navy Helicopter Pilot, Cmdr. Harmer:
Without ground forces, argues Cmdr. Christopher Harmer, a retired Navy helicopter pilot, U.S. airmen are essentially flying half-blind and, as a result, are returning to base with their bombs still in the bay.
“As long as the body politic or president or whoever is making decisions absolutely refuses to put American air controllers on ground, essentially pilots are flying with one eye closed,” Cmdr. Harmer said. “It’s almost impossible for pilots to designate between [Islamic State] fighters and coalition fighters.”
Cmdr. Harmer, who now serves as a senior naval analyst with the Middle East Security Project at the Institute for the Study for War, said airstrikes can hit big, static targets such as bridges, runways and tanks without on-the-ground guidance. But to be effective in hitting moving targets such as enemy troops in a firefight, U.S. pilots need American joint terminal attack controllers to give specific directions from the ground to guide their missiles precisely.
Fewer targets of opportunity says CENTCOM:
Col. Pat Ryder, spokesman for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), told reporters Friday that while pilots can often place bombs on targets “within minutes,” it’s very important to be very precise and exercise tactical discipline to protect civilian populations.
“We’re dealing with a hybrid adversary who often hides among the population,” he said. “It’s more important for us to accurately target the enemy with a high degree of precision in order to minimize civilian casualties than it is to strike with such speed or force that would risk disenfranchising the very population we’re there to protect.”
Richard Brennan of RAND Corporation has a more pragmatic assessment:
But to make things work without a ground force and employing only air power, the rules of engagement must change, argues Richard Brennan, a senior political scientist at RAND Corp.
Mr. Brennan said the Islamic State, in adapting and responding to U.S. airstrikes, has started to intermingle its fighters with civilians to frustrate U.S. attacks from the air.
In an effort to protect civilian lives, the strict rules of engagement are doing the opposite by giving the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, the opportunity to kill civilians, he said.
“Even though the United States isn’t doing the killing, by its inability to use force in all but the cases where they’re sure of not having collateral damage, we’re ceding the advantage to ISIS in many situations,” Mr. Brennan said.
Looks to us that CENTCOM needs to whistle up a session with IAF General Eshel to understand how the Israelis do precision hits against Hamas in heavily urbanized Gaza City and Hezbollah Syrian missile and weapons transfers. Both Cmdr. Harmer of the Institute for the Study of War and Brennan of the RAND Corporation are correct about the stringent rules for engagement in the air war against. They are generating more collateral civilian casualties. Something that didn’t dawn on the Metternichean Munchkins in the Obama National Security Council who call the shots over Pentagon objections.
Hijab Jihad, Or Aggressive Muslim Behavior In The Workplace Wins One
Here is the story, about the Supreme Court denying a company the right not to employ someone who was well aware of the desire, the business need, of that company to hire salespeople who embodied "the Look" that that company wished its clothes to be identified with, and who did not make clear at the time of her hiring that she would insist on wearing the hijab anyway.
But what needs now to be done is for someone, some employer, some company, to say that it does not wish to hire people who believe that it is the uncreated and immutable Word of God to say the kinds of things that are found in the Qur'an in so many places, but perhaps especially in Sura 9 (e.g., 9.5 and 9.29), and that it is reasonable to think that someone who identifies as a Muslim may be held to believe. And why should other, non-Muslim employees, or a non-Muslim employer, be expected to endure the company of someone who takes as the Word of God the violence and hatred to be found in the Qur'an, and even more, in the Sunnah. Texts can be adduced, testimony can be found, the historical record and the observable behavior of large numbers of Muslims world-wide toward non-Muslims of very variety brought forth, and the case made, that it is unreasonable to force non-Muslims to hire Muslims, as putting an undue psychic and possibly physical burden on them. No nonsens about "free exercise of religion" is admissible. This is a case of perceived security in the workplace, of the desire of most people not to work with others whom they know believe in texts they deem sacred and that preach hostility, hatred, and aggression against them.
Even if such a case were to be lost, the making of it, the publicizing of the Qur'anic texts, and stories in the Hadith and episodes in the Sira, would be most instructive. And Musilms would be fearful of allowing those texts to be properly identified and publicized in such a court case. Let the lawsuits, deliberately brought on themselves by an individual or individuals or employers, who decide and declare their open intention not to hire Muslims, unless those Muslims openly declare that they do not subscribe to what may be called the "Jihad verses" of the Qur'an (see the Calcutta Qur'an Petition), begin.
Then whatever the outcome in the courts, in the court of public opinion the results will be devastating. And make people, and legislators, think.
From one more sob story about the "poor Palestinians" in Gaza whose "economy" is "close to collapse" mainly, the article insists, because of the permanently awful Israelis, and now the Egyptian government too, for some completely unknown reason refusing the free flow of goods into the area (you know, things like concrete for innocent building purposes, when concrete is diverted to building military bunkers and tunnels and so on), and in Egypt's case, destroying the thousands of tunnels through which Gazans acquire from, and send to, the Sinai, where such weaponry has been used to kill Egyptians, and even some smuggled into Cairo for anti-regime Ikhwan supporters:
"The report[on the Gaza economy] highlights that countries have not stood by their pledges. Although $5.4 billion was the figure widely publicized, only $3.5 billion of it was actually allocated to Gaza. As of late April, donors had given only 27.5 percent of this figure, or $967 million. However, only 35 percent of the aid pledged - or $1.2 billion - was actually "fresh", with the majority coming from reallocated donations and emergency funding delivered as the bombs were still falling, according to IRIN. Of this new aid, just 13.5 percent - or $165 million - has come through.
States that pledged most have failed to follow through. Qatar has delivered just 10 percent of the $1 billion it promised. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait between them have handed over just over $50 million of the $900 million they pledged. The World Bank had no data on the United Arab Emirates' $200 million, while 84 percent of the United States' $277 million pledge has been delivered. The European Union's $348 million has a 40 percent delivery rate.
The Half-Baked Politicisation of Christian Cakeries
by Robert Harris (June 2015)
Who would have thought cakes, those (preferably) light sweet fragrant confections, would be the cause of abiding social turmoil? The cake shop just around the corner, where these flavoursome concoctions are made, can be a flash-point of contention, quite possibly of international proportions! Why are such businesses and even lives ruined by the ensuing fracas? more>>>