All of us are familiar with Aesop’s Fables from our childhood years. One of my favorites is the Farmer and the Snake.
In the winter of ancient Greece a Farmer found a frozen snake on a cold day. Feeling sorry for the serpent the Farmer carried the Snake into his warm cottage. Slowly the Snake revived in the warmth of the home. The fully reanimated Snake reverted to its natural instinct. The poisonous viper struck his benefactor, the Farmer. Soon thereafter the expiring Farmer stated with his dying breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”
The moral of the story is that the greatest kindness will not have any effect upon the ungrateful.
This fable is a modern parable of the consequences of admitting radical Islamists into our society. Instead of coming to the USA and enjoying the freedom we provide for everyone they are here to subvert our Constitution. Declaring Sharia to be a superior form of Allah given law their declared goal is make America an Islamic society governed by full fledged Sharia.
A Sudanese Christian friend of mine compares Sharia to a slithering, stealthy cobra slowly invading one’s home unnoticed. When discovered the cobra delivers a deadly strike to its victim and crawls away to find a new habitation to begin its poisonous work anew.
Toleration of the intolerant always means suicide for the culture.
We are under no compulsion to assist radical Islamists destroy Western Civilization. Their values are anathema to our culture.
Don’t befriend poisonous snakes. When you see a snake, kill it.
"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.
"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.
"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.
"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student
"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.
"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.
While the world's media has been blaming Israel for the death of Gazan civilians during Operation Protective Edge, this correspondent decided to speak with Gazans themselves to hear what they had to say.
They spoke of Hamas atrocities and war crimes implicating Hamas in the civilian deaths of its own people.
Although Gazans, fearful of Hamas's revenge against them, were afraid to speak to the media, friends in the West Bank offered introductions to relatives in Gaza. One, a renowned Gazan academic, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that as soon as someone talked to a Western journalist, he was immediately questioned by Hamas and accused of "communicating with the Mossad". "Hamas makes sure that the average Gazan will not talk to Western journalists -- or actually any journalists at all," he said, continuing:
"Hamas does not want the truth about Gaza to come out. Hamas terrorizes and kills us just like Daesh [ISIS] terrorizes kills Iraqis. Hamas is a dictatorship that kills us. The Gazans you see praising Hamas on TV are either Hamas members or too afraid to speak against Hamas. Few foreign [Western] journalists were probably able to report what Gazans think of Hamas."
When asked what Gazans did think of Hamas, he said:
"The same as Iraqis thought of Saddam before he was toppled. He still won by 90-something percent in the presidential elections. If Hamas falls today in Gaza, people here will do what Iraqis did to Saddam's statue after he fell. But even though Western journalists may not have been able to speak freely with Gazans, they still need a story to send to their editor by the end of the day. So it is just easier and safer for them to stick to the official line."
"What was that," I asked: "'Blame Israel'?"
"I don't know about that," he said. "More like, 'Never blame Hamas!'. Hamas was making a 'statement': Opposing Hamas Means Death. Hamas is a dictatorship that kills us."
M., a journalist, confirmed his view. "I do not believe any of the people Hamas killed in the last weeks were Israeli spies," he said. "Hamas has killed many people for criticizing it, and claimed they were traitors working for Israel during the war."
"There were two major protests against Hamas during the third week of the war. When Hamas fighters opened fire at the protesters in the Bait Hanoun area and the Shijaiya, five were killed instantly. I saw that with my own eyes. Many were injured. A doctor at Shifa hospital told me that 35 were killed at both protests. He went and saw their bodies at the morgue."
To verify those reports, I spoke to a second Gazan academic, who holds a PhD. from a Western university, who stated:
"Hamas did kill protesters, no doubt about that. But we could not confirm how many were actually killed. If I have to guess, the number was more than reported. I am confident that not all of the 21 men Hamas killed on August 22 were collaborating with Israel. Hamas killed those men because it was weakened by Israel's attacks and felt endangered. So it went on a 'Salem Witch-Hunt.' They arrested everyone who opposed them and had to make a few examples to scare people from standing against Hamas. Hamas's tactic worked. Now Gazans are afraid to talk against Hamas even in front of their own family members. Gazans are probably afraid to criticize Hamas even in their sleep!"
Asked about Abu Toameh's report, S., a Gazan political activist said:
"Taha was already in Hamas's jail before Israeli operations started. Hamas imprisoned him and tortured him because he was critical of its radical policies. He had warned Hamas not to cooperate with Qatar and Iran. Eye-witnesses said they saw Hamas militants bring him alive into the yard of Shifa hospital in Gaza and shoot him dead. They kept mutilating his body in front of viewers and little children and left it on the hospital's yard for a few hours before allowing the staff to take it to the morgue."
A., a Fatah member in Gaza, spoke over Skype -- fearful that Hamas was intercepting phone lines:
"Even before the Israeli operation began, Hamas rounded up 400 of our members and other political-opposition figures. I would not be surprised if Hamas kills them all and then claims they were killed in an Israeli bombing. Hamas already beheaded a man known for opposing its views on the 22nd day of the war, then reported on its Facebook page that he was caught sending intelligence information to Israel. If Hamas does not like you for any reason, all they have to do now is claim you are a Mossad agent and kill you."
S. a medical worker, said:
"The Israeli army sends warnings to people [Gazans] to evacuate buildings before an attack. The Israelis either call or send a text message. Sometimes they call several times to make sure everyone has been evacuated. Hamas's strict policy, though, was not to allow us to evacuate. Many people got killed, locked inside their homes by Hamas militants. Hamas's official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate. In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed. This is how the Shijaiya massacre happened. More than 100 people were killed."
Another Gazan journalist, D., said:
"Hamas fired rockets from next to homes. Hamas was running from one home to another. Hamas lied when it claimed it was shooting from non-populated areas. To make things even worse for us, Hamas would fire from the balconies of homes and try to drag the Israelis into door-to-door battles and street-to-street fights -- a death sentence for all the civilians here. They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did. They are cowards. If Hamas militants are not afraid of dying, why do they run after they fire rockets from our homes? Why don't they stay and die with us? Are they afraid to die and go to heaven? Isn't that what they claim they wish?"
Hamas boasted that Palestinian civilians were killed while Hamas's terrorists remained alive, hiding in their underground bunkers and tunnels. (Image source: Hamas video screenshot)
K, another graduate student at an Egyptian university who had gone to Gaza to see his family but was unable to leave after the war started, said on July 22:
"When people stopped listening to Hamas orders not to evacuate and began leaving their homes anyway, Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot without being asked any questions. That way Hamas made sure people had to stay in their homes even if they were about to get bombed. God will ask Hamas on judgment day for those killers' blood."
I asked him if Hamas used people as "human shields." He said: "Hamas held the entire Gazan population as a human shield. My answer to you is yes."
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the press on September 6 that Hamas had killed 120 Fatah members who broke the curfew.
T., a former Hamas Ministry officer, said: "Hamas fires from civilian areas for a good reason: The Israelis call the civilians and give them ten minutes to evacuate. This gives Hamas time to fire another rocket and run away."
Why, I asked, did Hamas not allow people to evacuate?
"Some people say Hamas wants civilians killed in order to gain global sympathy, but I believe this is not the main reason. I think the reason is that if all the people were allowed to evacuate their homes, they all would have ended up in a certain area in Gaza. If that happened, it would have made the rest of Gaza empty of civilians, and the Israelis would have been able to hit Hamas without worrying about civilians in all those empty areas. Hamas wanted civilians all over the place to confuse the Israelis and make their operations more difficult."
S., a Gazan businessman, said:
"The cease-fire Hamas agreed to carried the same conditions the Egyptians and the Israelis offered during the second week of the war -- after only 160 Gazans had been killed. Why did Hamas have to wait until 2,200 were killed, and then accept the very same offer? Hamas has blackmailed the world with the killed Gazan civilians to make itself look like a freedom fighter against an evil Israel. Hamas showed Gazans that it could not care less for their blood and their children. And why should Hamas care? Its leaders are either in mansions in Qatar or villas in Jordan. Mashaal [Khaled Mashaal, the head of Hamas] is in Qatar, Mohammad Nazzal is in Jordan and Abu Marzouk is in Cairo: why should they want a ceasefire? Everyone here in Gaza is wondering why Hamas rejected so many ceasefires. Hamas knows it will not defeat Israel's army, so why did it continue fighting? The answer is simple: Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel by showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar."
I asked S. if other Gazans shared his view. He said,
"Gazans are not stupid. We are now telling Hamas: Either you bring victory and liberate Palestine as you claim, or simply leave Gaza and maybe give it back to the Palestinian Authority or even Israel -- or even Egypt! We have had enough of Hamas's hallucinations and promises that never come true."
O., a researcher who lives in Gaza Strip's second largest city, Khan Younis, said:
"Most of us see Hamas as too radical and too stubborn, especially the way it was refusing ceasefires offered from Israel. They even refused a 24-hour ceasefire during the third week of the war. They denied us even 24 hours of quiet to bury the dead. Even some Hamas loyalists here are asking why Hamas refused several ceasefires and made us suffer. Hamas did this on purpose because Hamas is a slave to Qatar. Qatar wants the war to go on because it is a terrorist Islamist country, and Hamas wants more of us dead to appease its masters in Qatar. Let's be realistic, Hamas is in a bad shape now. Israel destroyed most tunnels; that is why Hamas had to join the ceasefire talks in Cairo. Were the Israelis' hits to Hamas not so painful, Hamas would not be negotiating in the first place. At the same time, Hamas is asking Israel for the impossible, like an open seaport and an airport. Israel would never allow that, and Hamas knows this, but Hamas might just be buying time by throwing out these demands. You have to keep in mind that Hamas is not concerned with our conditions as Gazans. After all it is our children who are dying, not the children of Hamas's leaders. Hamas is weak now, and I believe it lost most of its tunnels. Israel's Iron Dome destroyed so many of their rockets before they landed in Israel; that is why Hamas is being ruthless with Gazans. When Hamas locks people inside homes about to be bombed, when it kills people protesting against it and when it executes alleged traitors without even a trail, these are war crimes."
"It is true," said A., a teacher. "I do not know a single Gazan who is pro-Hamas at the moment, except for those on its payroll. Hamas maintains its control here through a military dictatorship, just like North Korea. People will be killed if they protest. Even Gazans living abroad fear to criticize Hamas because Hamas will take revenge on their relatives who are here."
M., a Gazan television producer, stated:
"Of course I am against Israel and I want it out of Gaza and out of the West Bank, but I still believe Hamas is more of a threat to the Palestinian people. Hamas took over Gaza by killing us [Palestinians] and throwing our young men from high buildings. That is what Hamas is about: murder and power. Hamas is also delusional. Its leaders refused the Egyptian cease-fire proposal, they got hit hard by the Israelis, and then when the war stopped, they declared victory. Even the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, admitted it when he lost Ohoud war [A war in which pagan Arabs defeated Muhammad's army and in which Muhammad was almost killed]. Hamas lives in its own fantasy world. Hamas wanted the dead bodies to make Israel look ugly. The media has exerted a huge pressure on Israel for every dead Gazan. In that sense, Hamas's tactic has worked, and we have seen more Western tolerance of Hamas, especially in Europe. Of course Hamas doesn't care if we all die so long as it achieves its goals. We are not going to accept living under Hamas any longer. Even if there is calm, and the firing stops, we are going to still be under Hamas's mercy, where all basic living standards are considered luxuries. Hamas is just buying time by going to the ceasefire talks. Hamas does not want a ceasefire."
When asked why that was, he said, "Ask Qatar's Sheikh, not me. He is Hamas's god who gives them billions and tells them what to do. May God curse Qatar!"
A first-aid volunteer, E., said that Hamas militants had confiscated 150 truckloads of humanitarian supplies the day before. He said the supplies were donated by charities in the West Bank and that their delivery was facilitated by the IDF. He commented: "This theft angers all of us [Gazans]. The Israeli army allows supplies to come in, and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas."
Another aid worker, A., confirmed that Hamas steals the humanitarian supplies given to Gaza. "They [Hamas] take most of it, sell it to us, and just give us the stuff they do not want."
A Gazan mosque's imam said that the most precious aid item Hamas stole was water. "Gazans are thirsty and Hamas is stealing the water bottles provided to us for free and selling them at 20 Israeli shekels [approximately $5] for the big bottle and 10 Israeli shekels for the small one."
H., who did not want his profession to be mentioned, lost one of his legs in an Israeli raid. I asked him who he thought was responsible for his injury. He stated:
"Hamas was. My father received a text-message from the Israeli army warning him that our area was going to be bombed, and Hamas prevented us from leaving. They said there was a curfew. A curfew, can you believe that? I swear to God, we will take revenge on Hamas. I swear to God I will stand on my other foot and fight against Hamas. Even if Israel leaves them alone, we will not. What had my two-year-old nephew done to be killed under the rubble of our home so Khaled Mashaal [Hamas leader based in Qatar] could be happy? We want change at any cost. I am not claiming the Israelis are innocent, but I know Hamas has fired rockets from every residential spot in Gaza. If that was not hiding behind civilians, then it was stupidity and recklessness. Nobody who is normal, in his right mind, in Gaza supports Hamas. People have lost parents, children and friends, and have nothing more to lose. I believe if given the chance and the weapons, they will stand against Hamas."
K., a Gazan school teacher agreed:
"When Hamas starts caring for our children we will start caring for Hamas. Hamas has one policy, to attack Israel; so Israel attacks back, and gets us killed and Hamas then gets more money from Arabs and Erdogan [Turkey's president]. My son has autism; he cannot handle the sounds of rockets and bombs landing. Why would I support Hamas, which causes this suffering to him? Gazans have had enough of Hamas, any claims that we love Hamas is just propaganda. A recent poll indicates that most of us support Hamas; this is not true, except maybe in the West Bank where they have not yet lived under Hamas rule. I cannot accuse the polling center of fabricating the poll, but my safest explanation for the result is that Gazans polled are too afraid to give their true opinions of Hamas. Hamas watches everything here. Most Gazans now have to deal with the aftermath of the war. Almost 300,000 Gazans are now homeless and Hamas is not providing them with anything. So why would they or their extended families have any love for Hamas? Would there be any common sense to that? Most Gazans are angry at Hamas, and most of us would love to see them replaced by any other force."
Despite all Hamas has done to Gazans, they do not seem to hold much love -- or less hatred -- for Israel.
S., a graduate of an American university and a former Hamas sympathizer, warned:
"Don't get fooled. Gazans are not in love with Israel yet, but they do not want to fight Israel anymore. We do not want to embrace Israel; we just want to live normally without wars. We want to live and work in Israel like we used to. We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation, instead. I would welcome Netanyahu to rule Gaza so long as Hamas leaves, and I think most Gazans feel the same way. We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money, we miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here, but politically speaking, we just think of it as the better of two evils: Israel and Hamas."
M., who lost his 11 year old daughter in an Israeli bombing said: "I will not forgive either Hamas or Israel for losing my daughter. If you ask me if I hate Israelis, my answer would be no, but do I love them? Of course not. There is too much blood between us, but I can only hope someday we both will move on and heal our wounds."
When asked what he would do if he were in Israel's place, being attacked non-stop by Hamas, he responded: "I do not care if both Israel and Gaza burn in hell."
F., a Gazan physician, said:
"I wish Israel never existed, but as it does not seem to be going away, I would rather be working in Israel like I used to before the first Intifada, not fighting it. Hamas sympathizers, apologists and appeasers should be ashamed of themselves for supporting a terrorist organization that has butchered civilians, Israeli and Palestinian. Apparently a group of Israelis is working on bringing Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to trial in the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the world should consider putting all the Hamas leaders on trial for crimes against the Gazan people."
Laurie Goodstein's Casual Errors: Quel Giorno Più Non Vi Leggemo Avante
An article by Laurie Goodstein, something about rabbis and those of their congregants who won't stand for those who show equal solicitude for Israelis killed and those who have lived (and died) to kill them, early on contains this casual bit of misinformation:
"Forty-seven years after Israel’s victory in the 1967 Middle East war — celebrated by Jews worldwide — Israel’s occupation of Arab lands won in battle and its standoff with the Palestinians have become so divisive that many rabbis say it is impossible to have a civil conversation about Israel in their synagogues."
What Laure Goodstein apparently thinks she has a right to do is to misrepresent the legal status of territories that were long ago assigned to the Mandate for Palestine, by the League of Nations and its Mandates Commission (the Swiss Professor William Rappard was its charman), that Mandate which, unlike the other Mandates created at the same time, which were all about the Arabs, was created for the express and sole purpose of facilitating the establishment of the Jewish National Home, which became the State of Israel. Apparently the Treaty of San Remo, the intent of the Mandate, which can be seen quite clearly in the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine, and all the rest of its well-establshed history, is something Laurie Goodstein thinks she can ignore. She thinks she need not acquaint herself with the studies of Dean Rostow of Yale, of Wlliam Brinton, of dozens of others (incuding Dore Gold, who wrote about the requirement, according to U.N. Resolution 242, of "secure and defensible borders" and what that must have meant to the drafters of that Resolution). No, she, Laurie Goodstein, is allowed to describe the territories won by force of Israel arms, but to which Israel had a prior legal and historic claim (and so Israel could now exercise that claim, should it chose), as "occupied Arab lands." This is Arab propaganda, offered so casually that perhaps, one is to conclude, both Laurie Goodstgein, and the many editors of The New York Times who allowed that travesty to pass and be published urbi et orbi, don't think they need even nod in the direction of Israeli rights, of the Mandate for Palestine, any longer. But they do.
That day I read -- and you too I suspect so let's make it "we" -- that day we read no longer.
What would it take for the Sunnis to support the Iraqi government? It would take turning over that Iraqi government to the Sunnis, so that they could distribute the national wealth, and jobs, to other Sunnis, for the Sunnis have always dominated modern Iraq, and see no reason why they shouldn't continue to do so. Foreigners and Shi'a tell them that Sunni Arabs are less than 20% of the population, but the Sunnis know that must be a lie, they must surely equal, or surpass, the Shi'a Arabs in number.
They threw rocks at the bus, in order to force the young, female driver to stop and pick them up. They shouted: Open up, or we'll kill you.
These illegals, who cannot possibly offer the Italian state anything of value, and who are an enormous expense -- beginning with security, but also including expenses to the health system, the education system (should any wish to learn Italian, or have children with them) -- keep coming and coming. They are damaging, even destroying, much of Italy. And doing the same in the rest of Europe. The most dangerou are those who are Muslims, but Muslim immigrants are not the only danger. The time of buonismo, angelismo, goody-goodyness, has passed, or should have, all over the besieged Western world.
Illustration de la distance qui existe entre le monde politico-médiatique et le réel : à aucun moment, dimanche soir sur France 2, Nicolas Sarkozy ou son intervieweur n’ont abordé le défi posé par l’Etat islamique, ni les menaces de troisième guerre mondiale qu’il fait pourtant peser. Ce lundi matin, le porte-parole du califat, que les autorités françaises préfèrent nommer Daesh afin de gommer sa filiation islamiste, s’est rappelé au bon souvenir des Occidentaux angéliques, en invitant "les musulmans" à tuer les "mécréants", civils ou militaires ; et spécialement "les méchants et sales Français" coupables de faire partie de la coalition internationale mise en place pour combattre le groupe djihadiste en Irak et en Syrie. "Comptez sur Allah et tuez l’incroyant de n’importe quelle manière", déclare Abou Mohammed al-Adnani. Il vient contredire au passage la récente injonction de Laurent Fabius appelant à "mener un combat idéologique pour dire que Daesh n’a rien à voir avec la religion musulmane qui est une religion de paix". Le porte-parole du califat donne même des instructions pour bien assassiner l’ennemi : "Frappez sa tête avec une pierre, égorgez-le avec un couteau, écrasez-le avec votre voiture, jetez-le d’un lieu en hauteur, étranglez-le ou empoisonnez-le". Un millier de jeunes français ont déjà rejoint, en Irak ou en Syrie, ces enragés. Ceux-là ont donc des réseaux au cœur même de la république. Ils ne sont pas, c’est entendu, représentatifs de la communauté musulmane. Mais ils sont aussi musulmans, parfois convertis, et se fondent parmi eux.
"Ceci n’est pas l’islam", répètent les prestidigitateurs, comme Magritte le disait de son tableau représentant une pipe. L’oubli du journaliste et de l’homme politique, hier soir, procède de ce même déni des apparences qui permet d’évacuer les sujets sensibles. Or l’islam n’est pas seulement une religion, pratiquée sereinement le plus souvent. C’est aussi un code juridique, une constitution, une idéologie de conquête ayant entamé une guerre de civilisation. Depuis ce lundi, elle menace explicitement la France. Il aurait été opportun que Sarkozy s’en inquiète auparavant, pour preuve de sa lucidité. La parole politique restera vaine et déconnectée des urgences si elle persiste à se réduire à des opérations de communication et d’auto-valorisation, comme l’a été en fait la prestation du candidat à la présidence de l’UMP : 8,5 millions de téléspectateurs ont suivi les trois-quarts d’heure du show de Sarkozy, qui se flatte également d’avoir un million de "like" sur Facebook. Ces performances sont à la hauteur de cet excellent acteur, qui a repris son jeu comme s’il ne l’avait jamais quitté. Mais son discours est resté flottant et contradictoire. Comment assurer à la fois vouloir prendre de la hauteur et se proposer de relancer ("Si je ne le fais pas, qui le fera?") un parti en jachère? Sur quels sujets porteraient les référendums promis? Dans quels sens iraient les alliances? Sarkozy a comme atout d’être confronté à un paysage dévasté. Encore faudrait-il qu’il désigne toutes les causes de ces désastres s’il veut vraiment les combattre.
The Islamic State Makes Everything Perfectly Clear
Here is a long declaration just released by the Islamic State. Every word deserves to be read, and understood. It is addressed both to fellow Muslims around the world, calling on them to kill non-Muslim military and civilians (for there is no distinction to be made) and is a warning to non-Muslims, setting out the Islamic basis for every action of the members of the Islamic State, and predicting that Allah will give ultimate victory, all over the world, to the Muslims who will then rule over the world as they wish.
A statement to be sent to as many people as possible, especially those who in the press attempt to write about Islam and, of course, to the blairs and kerrys (Kerry himself is described in the English translation of the statement as an "uncircumsised old geezer") of this world, with their "nothing to do with" and "complete perversion of" Islam, Islam, Islam.
The Shiites, in the view of the Uber-Sunnis of the Islamic State, are Infidels -- even, perhaps, the worst of Infidels -- and so their property can be treated just like that of other non-Muslims.
But, you may say, shouldn't they be allowed to keep their property, and to pay the Muslims, through an annual Jizyah only?
No. Consider the example of Muhammad. When he defeated those he attacked -- think of the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis -- he simply seized all of their property, and their women too, while slaughtering the men. He didn't say: You can keep your property, but pay us, over time, an annual Jizyah. The Islamic State relies not only on the Qur'an but on the Sunnah -- that is, the behavior of the earliest, and therefore most authentic, best Muslims. And Muhammad was the most authentic, best of Muslims; he is the Model of Conduct, he is the Perfect Man.
So don't worry -- the Islamic State is being completely, totally, Islamic, and every true and truthful Muslm knows this. And that's what's disturbing them so much: they know that this is the pure Islam on display, and while they have ways of dealing with this, they don't want the Infidels to realize this.
For almost 200 years, it has been regarded as a well-respected medical journal. But according to senior British medical figures, the Lancet is being hijacked to campaign indefatigably against Israel, and used as a platform by alleged conspiracy theorists.
In August, it published a controversial “open letter for the people of Gaza” that condemned Israel in the strongest possible terms, but strikingly made no mention of Hamas’ atrocities.
The five principal authors of the letter made it clear that they had “no competing interests”. However, all of them have campaigned vociferously for the Palestinian cause over many years. In addition, a cache of emails openly available in Google groups show that two of the authors, Dr Paola Manduca and Dr Swee Ang, have sympathies with the views of David Duke, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard.
Dr Swee Ang, an orthopaedic surgeon, and Dr Manduca, a professor of genetics at the University of Genoa in Italy. . . both members of pro-Palestine NGOs . . . In another email, Dr Manduca forwarded a message alleging that the Boston marathon bombings were in fact carried out by Jews. Elsewhere, she shared an article comparing the Jewish state to a “strangler fig”, which grows around other trees and takes their sunlight, often resulting in the death of the original trees.
Dr Ang said: “I didn’t know who David Duke was, or that he was connected to the Ku Klux Klan. I am concerned that if there is any truth in the video, that Jews control the media, politics and banking, what on earth is going on? I was worried.”
Dr Mads Gilbert, a third author of the letter, gave an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in 2001 in which he said that the 9/11 atrocities were as a result of Western foreign policy, and that he supported terror attacks in that “context”.
Israeli campaigners brought this information to the attention of the Lancet in a letter sent on 1 September. However, the journal has refused to issue a response and has not removed the open letter from its website – through which it collected 20,000 signatures in support of the letter.
“It's utterly irrelevant. It's a smear campaign,” the editor of the Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, told the Daily Telegraph. “I don’t honestly see what all this has to do with the Gaza letter. I have no plans to retract the letter, and I would not retract the letter even if it was found to be substantiated.” Dr Horton, who has in the past spoken at rallies organised by Stop The War Coalition, denied that the journal's reputation would be damaged by giving a platform to people who appear to hold such views, and said that the Lancet is not intending to investigate the allegations.
“For many years, the Lancet has been consistently using its reputation to attack Israel,” says Professor David Katz, an expert in infection and immunity at University College London. “The Lancet is supposed to be a politically neutral medical journal. (So is the BBC - that has never stopped them) The fact that they have given proven anti-Semites a platform and not rescinded it, even when confronted with the evidence, is appalling. They have allowed their hatred of Israel to blind them to the norms of medical science and the pursuit of reason.”
On 29 August, Professor Sir Mark Pepys, director of the Wolfson Drug Discovery Unit at UCL, wrote: “The failure of the Menduca et al authors to disclose their extraordinary conflicts of interest… are the most serious, unprofessional and unethical errors. The transparent effort to conceal this vicious and substantially mendacious partisan political diatribe as an innocent humanitarian appeal has no place in any serious publication, let alone a professional medical journal, and would disgrace even the lowest of the gutter press.”
He accuses Dr Horton, the Lancet editor, personally: “Horton’s behaviour in this case is consistent with his longstanding and wholly inappropriate use of The Lancet as a vehicle for his own extreme political views,” he says. “It has greatly detracted from the former high standing of the journal.”
In response, Dr Horton said: “How can you separate politics and health? The two go hand-in-hand.”
Now for a Really Destructive Innovation: A Europe-wide State
The best hope for the European Union would be for it to eventually evolve into an enormous Belgium. More likely, it will evolve into an enormous Yugoslavia circa 1990, which will not be quite so good.
Belgium, it seems to me, is a success and a failure. It is prosperous even as the conflict continues between Wallonia and Flanders, nearly two centuries after they were cobbled together—like harnessing hippos to a stagecoach—in a state that no one seriously expects ever to degenerate into violence. For myself, I have a sneaking respect for a country that can go 500 days without a central government; it must have been doing something right. Belgium is in a perpetual and insoluble political crisis, in which, however, politics are not in the least important.
The 19th century Russian poet, Tyutchev, said that you cannot understand Russia with your mind and I think the same is true of Belgium. You cannot understand Belgium with your mind (I don’t advise the attempt), though I take leave of Tyutchev when he adds with regard to Russia that you can only believe in it.
I don’t really want to live in a giant Belgium, let alone in a giant Yugoslavia, the more likely of the European dénouements. But the European political class and its intellectual cheerleaders appear determined to produce one or the other. Whenever I listen to the defenders of the European Union I am astonished at the thinness of their argumentation and the ruthlessness of their determination. This is not a good combination.
On the way back to England from Paris recently, I stopped at the bookstore to buy something to read. It is no doubt a sign of the times that what used to be an excellent bookstore is now reduced to a few shelves, the rest of the space being taken up by teddy bears, chocolates, glossy magazines and bottled water, but nonetheless I found a little book of sufficient interest that I could finish during my short flight. It was by the well-known French philosophical popularizer, Luc Ferry, and it was called L’Innovation destructrice (“Destructive Innovation”). Ferry is a conservative among French intellectuals, conservative at least by comparison with most of the others.
In the modern world, says Ferry, innovation is constant, not only in material products, but in morals and ways of life. Nothing with us is ever settled or can be taken for granted, and it is a condition of our prosperity that we should be in perpetual motion. It is no good complaining of a deterioration in the manners and levels of social civility of children when we distract them with elaborate electronics that replace conversation as the main means of human communication.
Ferry is no Luddite. He does not believe that all is for the worst in this the worst of all possible worlds, or that we should seek stagnation in order to prevent further deterioration of what we cherish. Gain has always been accompanied by loss, and he thinks that, all in all, more people live better, healthier, happier lives than ever before. I am not quite as sanguine as he, perhaps, but where I differ from him most is in his last chapter which, rather oddly, is a plea for European federalism. It is argued with the characteristic looseness of European federalists.
The first reason he gives for his federalism is that European civilization is superior to all the others, for it is the only one that has ever accorded adult status to individuals. As an example, he quotes a United Nations report to the effect that from now until 2020, 130 million children in the world will enter forced marriages. Quite why this should lead to European federalism he does not say, except that “without the indispensable infrastructure that is the European Union,” Europe will be swept away by “the ill winds that blow from all directions nowadays”—which will presumably make forced marriage the general rule in Europe.
This is preposterous as well cowardly. European civilization predated the European Union by some years. The malign trend of which he speaks does not reach Europe from all directions—not from North or South America, for example, or Russia. His words are directed against Muslims, but he does not dare say so. There is no danger or prospect of forced marriage becoming general in Europe, nor is there any reason to suppose that a Europe-wide state would be better at preventing or prohibiting it among Muslim minorities than the present nation states are.
Although Ferry is a Germanophile, having studied in Germany, his next argument is profoundly anti-German. The only way of combatting the kind of nationalism that led to catastrophic European wars, he says, is European federalism, but this is again absurd. There is no reason to believe that, but for the European Union, Portugal would attack Estonia, Ireland Luxembourg, or Greece Denmark. The only plausible candidates for a serious military conflict on the continent are France and Germany. What Ferry is really saying is that the European Union is necessary to contain Germany. This is to subscribe to the view of the Germans as eternal militarists, the inevitable enemy of France. I do not believe, however, that but for the European Union, Germany would attack France.
The third of his reasons is that the countries of Europe must unite politically in order to compete in the world. Large countries such as China, India, and the United States have clout; there is no place for small countries. In order to be of any account in the world, then, European nations must forgo their sovereignty and become part of a heftier entity.
Apart from ignoring altogether the political difficulties of union, the impossibility of making a functioning democracy of so many different nations, and the inevitable clashes of national interest that federalization would entail, Ferry ignores the evidence that many of the most successful countries in the world are small. There is no reason why countries cannot cooperate, including militarily, without pooling their sovereignty; such pooling as has already occurred in Europe has held its prosperity back rather than enhanced it. The currency union without any kind of fiscal union has already proved disastrous for several countries, and is economically deleterious for all. But the further step of fiscal union could only be imposed by an unelected, authoritarian bureaucracy upon countries unwilling to comply, and whose interests might not be served by compliance. Sooner or later, a federation would lead to war, or at least to revolution.
Feeble and sketchy as Ferry’s arguments are, no European federalist ever provides any better. They are trotted out with monotonous regularity, like the stories of someone with Alzheimer’s, and anyone who raises objections, however obvious and unanswerable, is immediately compared to a rabid nationalist, as if to be attached to a national identity were itself a symptom of hating everyone else. There are such rabid nationalists, to be sure. Forced federation is the best way of ensuring their increase in numbers and influence.
As the history of the world amply demonstrates, the mere badness of an idea does nothing to halt its progress. Europe is sleepwalking (yet again) to cataclysm.
In The Hague, a couple has been arrested after authorities discovered explosives in their home. According to the Ministry of Justice, these explosives were destined for plans to attack a European Commission building in Belgium, the AD writes on the basis of sources. The fear is now that they may have trained other potential terrorists to construct bombs.
According to the AD, 33-year-old Adil U. and 28-year-old Zeyneb K. were arrested in August on the Zaventern airport in Brussels after returning, officially, from Turkey. The suspicion at the time was that they probably came from Syria.
Justice from Belgium and The Netherlands executed a collaborative action to investigate five homes in The Hague and Brussels.
According to the AD, it has become even more clear after the arrest of these suspects that the network of jihadists in The Netherlands and Belgium has very close ties, and that country borders are largely ignored, making jihadists difficult to keep track of by intelligence services.
PRISON officers in riot gear have used tear gas to control maximum security inmates who tore apart Goulburn Jail in a racially fuelled riot described as the biggest in 10 years. With shouts of “Allah Akbar”, prisoners armed with homemade weapons threatened guards and smashed through an internal fence at the state’s toughest jail, which was in lockdown yesterday.
The riot came as prison authorities cracked down on Muslim prayer meetings in the state’s jails, believed to be a key way Islamic extremists foment their hatred and plot their attacks. Police were called in and investigations are ongoing. Tensions have been running high in the prison system as federal and NSW police step up their surveillance of suspected terrorists and any of their associates inside and outside prisons after the country’s terror alert was raised to high.
A source has revealed how the violence began in the maximum wing of the Goulburn facility about 3pm on Saturday when a number of ringleaders refused to line up for afternoon muster. The source said the unrest had begun as a result of some privileges being requested — and denied — for a handful of inmates, but the situation quickly turned into a full-scale riot along religious lines.
Following Saturday’s riots, seven ringleaders were segregated and four were seen by medical staff for minor injuries. Corrective Services NSW confirmed it had used chemicals on Saturday against inmates who caused damage but denied reports that it was religiously motivated.
The riot did not involve convicted terrorists held in Goulburn’s Supermax, who remain under constant surveillance.
The Islamic State is what it calls itself. It refers, constantly, to the Qur'anic texts that justify its every move, and to the Hadith that act as a reinforcing gloss on the Qur'an. So why not call it what it calls itself -- the Islamic State -- and stop pretending to believe, or believing, that the Islamic State "has nothing to do with Islam" or is "the Enemy of Islam." It has harmed the image of Islam, but that's because that image of Islam was a false one, based on appeasement, apologetics, ignorance, misinformation. It's Islam straight up, not on the rocks.
Former CIA Official Mike Morell Gave his Views to a Pensacola Audience About What Happened in Benghazi
Former CIA acting Director and Deputy Director Mike Morell
The Pensacola Tiger Bay Club held its annual meeting and dinner on the evening of September 19, 2014. Former Acting CIA Director and Deputy Director Michael Morell was the speaker. Morell retired after serving 33 years at the CIA as an analyst and manager. He was the Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefer during the George W. Bush era from 2001 to 2006 and was with the President in Sarasota, Florida when the 9/11 attacks occurred. He was involved as a senior Agency official monitoring the tracking of Bin Laden’s courier that led to the attack on the Abbottabad, Pakistan compound on May 1, 2011 resulting in the killing of Bin Laden and several others. Morell’s retirement in August 2013 came amidst the controversy regarding his editing of the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi on the night of 9/11 into the morning of 9/12, 2012. Those attacks on the Special Missions Compound and CIA Annex resulted in the deaths of four Americans; Amb. J. Christopher Stevens, his Communications aide, Sean Smith, CIA Annex Security team members, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
There are allegations by both the Senate and House Select Intelligence Committee leaders that Morell’s testimony about the talking points was “misleading” based on alleged reliance on news reports and heavily redacted to exclude possible Al Qaeda involvement. Moreover, Morell made the judgment call to dismiss emails from the CIA Station chief in Tripoli that there were no spontaneous protests that led to the attacks on the Special Missions Compound and CIA Annex. Subsequent third party intelligence revealed the attacks may have been pre-planned involving local Libyan Al Qaeda militias, professionally conducting mortar attacks that took the lives of Woods and Doherty at the Annex on the morning of 9/12.
Wrongful death claims in the amount of $2 million were filed on September 19, 2014 in California against both the CIA and State Department by the surviving family and a friend of Glen Doherty. The suits allege there was inadequate security at both the Special Missions Compound and the CIA Annex in Benghazi at the time of the attacks.
Morell received a substantial honorarium for his appearance in Pensacola. Morell endeavored to inform the large Tiger Bay audience about the complexities of the Human Intelligence (‘HUMINT”) missions of the CIA. Those ranged from spying-stealing secrets, all source data analysis that he likened to fitting together a giant puzzle of ultimately 1,000 pieces without the benefit of a picture box cover and covert para-military actions. He said that accusations of rogue CIA para military operations were false as those actions had to comply with a Presidential Finding or authorization, cleared with Congressional Select Intelligence Committees and the Justice Department. He considers Agency paramilitary operations, cleared in this manner, as part of the mission to influence national security.
Morell provided anecdotes about, his 9/11 experience, with President Bush that fateful day. When asked by Bush who might have attacked us he advised that most likely it was perpetrated by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Morell discussed the Agency’s tracking of Bin Laden’s courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti that led to the Navy Seal attack on the Abbotabad, Pakistan fortified compound - the action that took the life of the head of Al Qaeda and several others on May 1, 2011. He presented other anecdotes culminating in an emotional tribute to the seven analysts killed in a Khost, Afghanistan suicide attack in 2009 who are among the 111 Stars on the Memorial Wall at the McLean, Virginia headquarters.
During the Q+A Morell addressed questions on his personal relations with former President Bush, he liked him. Why the Agency bought off on Saddam Hussein’s WMD program, a mistake he alleges was due to stale five year old information. The threats from ISIS and Al Nusrah in the Middle East region and to the US homeland he believes will result in a long war against radical Islamist extremism “that your children and grandchildren will still be faced with.” He considers Putin as a geo-political threat, whose objective is the resurrection of the Russian empire. Morell characterized Putin as a high risk taker, despite looming Russian demographic and economic problems.
In the midst of the lengthy Q+A we posed a question:
Was the CIA aware of the Iranian and Hezbollah involvement in Benghazi during the uprising against Qaddafi, and later, in the lead-up to the attacks on Sept 11-12, 2012? Was the CIA aware of the arrival on July 31, 2012 of a 7-man team of so-called Iranian Red Crescent workers in Benghazi?
We had consulted with a former CIA covert officer , who goes by the nom de guerre of "Cowboy' and Ken Timmerman, author of Dark Forces: the Truth about What Happened in Benghazi in the drafting of the question. Note this exchange with Ken Timmerman in a forthcoming interview to be published in the October 2014 New English Review;
Gordon: Ken, you brought up something that leads to an obvious question based on the principal thesis of Dark Forces. That the Benghazi attack may have been an act of state sponsored terrorism on the part of Iran, its revolutionary guard and its proxy Hezbollah.
Timmerman: I think that the U.S. government has got quite a bit of information that shows that this is the case. I name three of the leaders in charge of planning for the attack on the Benghazi Special Mission Compound and the CIA Annex in my book. You have a two star Iranian Revolutionary Guard General who came to Benghazi in the summer of 2012. He is the one that came with the authority to sign off on the final operation details. There was a Revolutionary Guard Officer who had been stationed in Lebanon for many years. He was the Operational Chief. Then you had a Hezbollah leader who, because he was an Arab, could interface with the local militia. So the Iranians had been there since the start of the anti-Qaddafi uprising in February/March of 2011. My sources on the ground at the time, were telling me, they were spreading money around Benghazi like butter on bread. They were recruiting Jihadis, setting up their own militias, operating under false flags so the local Jihadis in Benghazi wouldn't necessarily know that the money was coming from Iran. Their expertise was coming from Iran. These three individuals worked with a team of approximately fifty professional Iranian Intelligence Officers to coordinate the plan, conduct surveillance for the attacks, penetrate the communications of the CIA Annex and our Special Missions Compound and set the whole thing in motion.
The former CIA Covert officer noted:
All Chiefs of Station (COS) and or Chiefs of Base (COB) receive a constant flow of CIA reporting relating to their area of location and definitely any threat indicators. It would be (to me) unimaginable that the COS in Tripoli would not receive all reporting of threat assessments. Or would not pass on the pertinent information to COB Benghazi. Intel to Benghazi would only be limited if the Base in Benghazi had limited communications capability...which meant they might not get the normal load of reporting. Of course, Tripoli Station would not be so limited.
Morell had a choice of saying the information was classified, which some might construe as a possible yes, or answer in the negative, raising further questions about his official position on what occurred in Benghazi. He answered in the negative.
The Tiger Bay moderator introduced our question saying there was someone from the CIA in the audience. Morell paused after hearing the question, clearly thinking about how he would reply.
He answered our question with a flat denial saying there were no IRGC or Hezbolleh operatives in Benghazi asserting that, “he was certain of that.” He then gave his interpretation of the three attacks at the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex over the 13 hours of 9/11 and 9/12. The first attack at the Special Missions Compound he alleged was composed of groups that included “folks out for a good time” and Islamist militias. He focused on what the analysts had seen from the CCTV video feed at the compound. According to him it was “not an organized military assault. Those who broke into the compound were not looking for Americans. They stole suits and Xboxes. The rioters opened and closed doors in the compound in comedic fashion akin to what the Three Stooges might do.” He alleged that there was no evidence the fires were set to kill the Ambassador and his aide. He said these Benghazi attacks were opportunistic allegedly triggered by what they had seen on the videos of the Cairo Embassy attack. The videos showed protesters pouring over the wall and vandalizing the Cairo Embassy property and vehicles. The second attack he alleged was a deliberate military assault that occurred several hours later at the Annex when a group of protesters, equipped with small arms, attacked - seeking to kill the Security team which “was beaten off by my folks.” He was referring to the CIA contractors who joined the Security Annex team trying to secure the Special Missions Compound and defend the Annex despite orders to stand down. The third attack he claimed took place four hours later in the early morning hours of 9/12 when the protesters “ran and secured RPGs and mortars scoring two direct hits” killing CIA contractors Ty Woods and Glen Doherty. He contested Congressional critics who said that this attack was professional by alleging that the attackers had only five rounds.
Morell then discussed what he called three politicizations of the Benghazi attack. The first was the immediate criticism by Governor Romney of President Obama’s policies that led to the Benghazi attack in the midst of the 2012 election campaign. Morell said that Romney later wished had not criticized the President at the time. The second politicization he alleged was committed by Deputy National Security Adviser and communications aide Ben Rhodes that led to the talking points used by then UN Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talk shows the weekend following the attack. The third Morell attributed to a small group in Congress endeavoring to deny Hillary Clinton the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination. He said that this was the first time in his career that national security had been politicized by both political parties.
Morell’s responses to our questions appeared to be contradicted by other evidence of what occurred in Benghazi.
The ex-CIA covert officer commented:
On the accidental fires at the Special Mission Compound : “ Arson is never accidental”.
On the Benghazi attacks triggered by the Cairo Embassy protests; “There is zero evidence of that..We are to believe that these were simple demonstrators upset by a video they’d never heard of?"
On the mortar attack that killed CIA contractors Woods and Doherty: “The number of rounds fired is irrelevant to whether they were “professional”…they would not have been firing anything in the organized fashion that they did if they were simple demonstrators.”
On Morell’s role in editing the talking points: “Morell is forgetting Obama’s refusal to even refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack. And he ignores his own role in the politicization process by editing the talking points.”
Did the Pensacola Tiger Bay Club audience get more than they bargained for with Morell’s appearance? They got Morell’s views without the whole truth on what led to the death of the four Americans in Benghazi. Is it any wonder that valued career officers serving in the intelligence community are resigning? Ken Timmerman noted this in our forthcoming interview in the October NER:
I'm hearing almost every day of … people who are leaving the intelligence community early before their career path is at its peak because they are just fed up and discouraged.
Trotskyite, "anti-colonialist" son of an "anti-colonialist" father, viciously anti-Israel (even quoting the well-known forgery, that supposed letter that Mandela was said to have written to Tom Friedman, likening Israel's treatment of the "Palestinians" to apartheid in South Africa), Edwy Plenel was raised in Martinique, where his father was a French official; after Muslim Arabs took over in Algeria, he decided to study there, and then became a scandal-plagued journalist involved in power struggles, scandals, misuse of his metier of journalist -- even his fellow left-wing journalists at Le Monde, fed up with him (the book by Pean and Cohen is full of examples of his malfeasance) finally revealed what he had done as the editor at Le Monde and the revelations were such that he was forced to leave his position.
Now he's written a book, "Pour les mussulmans," that celebrates the Muslim presence in France, a country which, he has just declared in a public interview, is lucky to have become the largest Muslim-populated country in Europe. Few French people, and none of those who are properly informed about Islam, would agree.
He also runs an on-line news site called Mediapart. Politically, a bend of emeritus professor Chomsky, U.N. Rapporteur Falk, and the superannuated Stephane Hessel --- all of them animated in the main, most recently, by a far-left view of the world that focusses, for reasons that need to be pondered, on the bottomless criminality of that mighty empire, Israel. In other words, Edwy Plenel is a plausible nearly-insane man, with a following among the far-left who have become the Defender of the Faith, Islam.