Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky














Thursday, 23 October 2014
Averil Power, And Ireland's Willing Collaborators In The Jihad Against Israel
clear

Every country in the EU is threatened by the world-wide assault of Muslims engaged, in one way or another, on the world's non-Muslims. Some use qital, or conventional combat. Some use, most sensationally, terrorism. Some engage in economic boycotts or pressure, others in propaganda against Infidels, or watch as their numbers, their inexorable demographic weapon increases and increases, throughout the Western world.

Meanwhile, dedicated antisemites, and those who have no understanding and little knowledge of the war conducted by Muslimms against the Infidel nation-state of Israel, through which an ancient and small people dared to reclaim a tiny sliver of territory from Dar al-Islam, and revive it from its desolation and waste (and not only of the physical kind), and managed to survive despite the many different and relentless efforts to annihilate it, are eagerly at work trying not only to help the Muslim Arabs destroy Israel through pushing it back to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, before Israel, through force of arms in the Six-Day War, won possession of the territories to which it already had a legal claim through the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, and that legal claim, itself reflecting a historic claim and a claim for justice that the Mandates Commission recognized, was buttressed by the need, recognized even by the U.N. in the carefully-crafted Resolution 2142 (remember that?), to create "defensible borders." Those defensible borders, at an absolute minimum, are those Israel possesses now, that is the territroy between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

Now comes a particularly insidious group of dedicated anti-Israel political figures in Ireland, headed apparently by one Averil Power, who does not know what the Mandate for Palestine was all about, does not care what Islam teaches nor about the threat of Muslims to the peoples and polities of Europe that is not one whit different from the threat to the Jews of Israel, who are determined to push the E.U. into an anti-israel position by calling for a "state of Palestine" the creation of which would make Israel's hellish task in defending itself even more hellish, and would not bring peace but certainly war, by making even Arab governments reluctant to join in an assault unable to resist, for with Israel left with an eight-mile wide waist at Qalqilya, no Arab ruler could claim that such an assault would certainly fail, and should not be tried. Averil Power and her ilk are preventing people from  grasping the nature of the war being waged on Israel, and in so doing, are at the same time preventing people in Ireland, and in Europe, from fully understanding the menace that is in their midst.

The great evil that she, and others like her, are doing, is reported on here.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 8:20 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
“Worrisome”: Turkey Releasing Lars Hedegaard’s Attempted Assassin
clear

Danish Foreign Minister Martin Lidgaard and Justice Minister Mette Frederiksen in Parliament, Copenhagen, October 16, 2014

Source: AA Photos

Yesterday, the ‘moderate Islamist’ AKP government  of President  Erodgan basically told a Danish government delegation  who had arrived in Ankara requesting extradition of Lars Hedegaard’s  attempted assassin, 27 year old Danish Lebanese citizen, Basil Hassan, (“BH”) to take a hike. This naturally follows  after a Judicial appeal  resulting in BH’s release. The Daily Hurriyet reported it was “a decision of the Turkish” judiciary, “Release of Danish murder suspect decision of Turkish judiciary”.   Note how the Danish delegation was effectively fobbed off:

The release of the shooting suspect of a right-wing writer and a critic of Islam in Denmark was not a “choice of executive power, but a ruling of the judiciary,” Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tanju Bilgiç said in a written statement on Oct. 22.

The decision was taken after a judicial process, Bilgiç added, noting that Turkey “understands” the sensitivities and concerns of the Danish authorities.

The Turkish government had launched the extradition process of Danish citizen Basil Hassan, but the process continued after his lawyer lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and Hassan was released in the meantime, he also said, adding that there is no official record showing that he has left Turkey.

A delegation of high-ranking Danish officials visited Ankara on Oct. 17 to investigate reports that a 26-year-old Danish man of Lebanese origin – arrested in Turkey in April for allegedly trying to shoot Hedegaard on Feb. 5, 2013 – was released. 

Lars Hedegaard of Danish  and International Free Press Societies

When we posted an interview with Hedegaard about the release of  “BH” by the Turkish government following his arrest in Istanbul on April 22, 2014. He said in responses to a question about the Danish government response:

Gordon:  Who in Denmark’s Parliament  has come to your defense?
 
Hedegaard:  This morning there was a parliamentary hearing with our justice and foreign ministers. All parties from left to right came out in my defense and expressed their disgust with Turkey.

Gordon:  Has Turkey violated the EC extradition treaty with the release of “BH”, and what recourse does Denmark have for his apprehension?
 
Hedegaard:  Turkey certainly has violated a European treaty on extradition, but Denmark can do very little.

Indeed, Denmark’s PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt   in Copenhagen  on Monday, October 20th indicated that the Turkish appeal  decision will not end the matter.  Thorning-Schmidt said:

This is an incredibly incomprehensible and unacceptable move. We are still waiting for a response on why the suspect is not in custody in Turkey. There should be no doubt that this issue is not closed.

Danish Justice Minister Frederickson was cited in Today’s Zaman saying:

Turkish officials have confirmed the release of the suspect previously involved in an armed assault on Lars Hedegaard. As is known, the release of said suspect has been debated for the last couple of weeks. It has now been confirmed. But it is not possible to understand or accept Turkey's approach

  A news report today stated  that the Turkish Ambassador to Denmark has been called in for ‘consultation’ tomorrow. Note this  Ledger –Enquirer report:

Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard says he will tell Mehmet Donmez on Friday that "it is clearly not satisfactory" that Turkey has not informed Danes why and when Danish national Basil Hassan was freed.

Lidegaard said Thursday the 27-year-old's release was "a huge problem."

Coincidental with this latest contretemps between Denmark and Turkey regarding the release of BH, Hedegaard’s attempted  assassin was a decision handed down in a Copenhagen municipal court.  The court found that prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence to convict 10 Kurdish émigrés on charges of diverting some of the $22 million sent charities in Turkey to the PKK.

 When we spoke about this  with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Vienna today, she deemed this “very worrisome”.  We are sure that It is personally concerning  for Lars Hedegaard , it leaves open possible sympathetic attacks against him, despite being under 24/7 Danish  security police protection.  As he is want to say, he will fight for liberty and freedom with his dying breath. 

 

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 1:53 PM by Jerry Gordon
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Another Attack On Shi'a Hazara In Pakistan
clear

Story here,

In Afghanistan the Hazara, who live in and around Herat, were being killed by the Taliban when the Americans arrived to save them. In Pakistan, the easily-identifiable Hazara (they are Mongol in appearance) have been the repeated object of attack for being Shi'a. One wonders when the people who run the Islamic Republic of Iran will come to their senses, realize they will never win over the Sunnis but merely increase hostility toward them if they acquire nuclear weapons, and if they should dare to use them against Israel, not only will they not be seen as the Paladin of the Jihad, winning applause and gratitude for damaging the Zionist nation-state, but Sunnis everywhere will be delighted to see the Israelis inflict retaliatory damage on them in return.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 12:30 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Be Wary of Those Who Preach Appeasement
clear

It is logically unsurprising that terrorist incidents targeting the military have occurred in Canada, but in this most peaceable of countries, it is always a shock. The plot to behead the prime minister was shocking up to a point but it was nipped in the bud and assumed a semblance almost of unreality. The terrible disaster of the bombing of the Air India 747 that killed 268 people in 1985 actually occurred in Irish airspace and was an intra-Indian sectarian act. It seemed less intimate than a gunman running through the halls of the federal Parliament, or even someone running down two soldiers in St. Jean, Quebec. Mortal, random assaults on uniformed members of our armed forces within this country and especially at the War Memorial in Ottawa, which honours all those scores of thousands, almost all volunteers, who have died in just wars for Canada and the cause of freedom throughout the world, followed by an eruption into the House of Parliament, is even more unambiguously shocking.

Though nothing mitigates the sadness of the fate of the victims, there are factors that should mitigate alarm: while apparently in sympathy with Islamic extremism, the perpetrators of the crimes at St. Jean and Ottawa were, as terrorists go, flee-on-foot amateurs, not really suicidal, not especially well-armed, and not evidently connected to any organization that imposed any discipline or tactical cunning on their activities. The fact that a violent extremist was able to prorupt into the Centre Block of Parliament and race down the corridor to the Library, causing the Conservative caucus to hide under desks and in broom closets and pour out the fire exit, is not so much a demonstration of the vulnerability of our public officials and institutions to violent extremists as a confirmation of how overwhelmingly peaceable the country is. Anyone who saw the depressing spectacle of the U.S. Secret Service chasing a woman (Miriam Carey) and her child around the approaches to the United States Capitol and finally killing her in 2013, although she apparently was only confused, can be grateful that our own comparable security arrangements have been so relaxed. And though everyone entering the Parliament building should be screened, at least cursorily, the facts remain that the intruder in Ottawa struck lethally in a public square, injured no one within the main Parliament building, and was despatched by security without a blazing fire-fight and with no collateral damage. The role of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Vickers, seems to have especially calm, efficient, and distinguished.

Of course, I have no standing to prejudge facts that will have to await investigation, but from all appearances, the strong and absolutely correct position the prime minister and the government have taken in joining the anti-Islamic State (ISIS) coalition has apparently generated the deranged resentment of some inhabitants of this country; there is no evidence that any foreign power or organization had anything to do with either the St. Jean or Ottawa incident. (If they had, the outrages would have been more professional and destructive.) Again, all countries have homicidal lunatics in their populations, and usually when they go over the top they plan a crime that enables them to kill a sequence or a bunch of victims. Norway is one of the few countries in the world as tranquil as Canada and even there, in 2011, an extreme white-supremacist killed eight people with a bomb in front of the prime minister’s office and 69 people two hours later  at a summer camp. While it is no consolation for the victims and those close to them, and the whole country is rightly outraged, In the range of possibilities for the violent and criminally diseased mind, the offenders in the last week in St. Jean and Ottawa get low marks in all areas-throw-weight, delivery system, infiltration, and even and though one is too many, body count.

Obviously, security will have to be tightened, uniformed representatives of Canada’s armed forces should be more vigilant than has been their need and habit while in-country, and everyone, without succumbing to paranoia or a culture of denunciation, should be more watchful. But the greatest potential threat is from international terrorist organizations that train their members thoroughly, arm them heavily, and where adherents are often happy to go down for the cause, if that will maximize the massacre of innocents. Our security agencies and specialists don’t need to be told this, but Canada certainly must be more careful than it has ever needed to be before to monitor and defeat attempts to infiltrate the country by violent international organizations, motivated by suicidal fanaticism and made unprecedentedly sinister by the lights of perverted science.

These terrible incidents demonstrate how correct Stephen Harper and the government has been to align Canada absolutely against agents of terror and their sponsors and alongside all civilized governments. I prayerfully hope not to hear any snivelling and waffling to the effect that all would be well if we just practised neutrality between terrorists and their opponents closer to the epicentre of these events, especially the sectarian and national protagonists in the Middle East. One of the minor benefits of this nastiest of all terrorist eras is that it is now clear that the hostility of these mutants is not entirely focused on Israel and in fact makes little distinction between Jews, Christians, and inadequately zealous Muslims. What is afoot and was involved in Ottawa yesterday was a conflict between absolute evil and civilization. There must be no ambiguity about where Canada stands. And the authorities were correct to pull the passport of the apparent author of the attack in St. Jean; we have a duty not to unleash such people on the world (where they could still murder Canadians), though in retrospect, the suspect should have been watched or detained. Less edifying than the prime minister’s strong leadership on the issue was his planted question in Parliament from a Conservative MP asking him to comment on the St. Jean attack. We can safely assume that the leaders of the opposition are just as appalled at these incidents as Stephen Harper is and any attempt to turn domestic terrorist acts into an election issue would not succeed.  

It is time that the political leaders of all governments except the few that assist terrorism, made a statement somewhat like Ronald Reagan’s reference to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” in 1983. There are significant aspects to Islam that are gratuitously violent, even by the most blood-curdling standards of the Bible. We live in a predominantly Judeo-Christian country and civilization that equably tolerates other faiths, tendencies, and cultures, but we should stop scampering around the edges of the problem that Islam has a considerable propensity to violence, vastly exceeding anything in our tradition. No sane person reproaches anyone the practice of Islam in a way that does not threaten the rights and dignity of others. But a substantial minority of Muslims adhere or at least sympathize with violent Islam. For them, we must maintain high standards of international law and domestic justice, but brand them as evil and reply to them with overwhelming force. We should hear no more of these effete complaints about “disproportionate responses” by Israel to the murderers of Israeli women and children. Those extreme Islamists who wish to die must be pre-emptively accommodated. Silence and inaction are complicity. We must never forget Franklin D. Roosevelt’s statement to his country (in January, 1941), that “We must always be wary of those who ‘with sounding brass and tinkling cymbal’ would preach the ‘ism of appeasement.”

Published in the National Post.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 12:00 PM by Conrad Black
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Fitzgerald: Anything To Do With Terrorism? Anything To Do With Islam?
clear

[re-posting]

Here.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 11:50 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Why Is Islam So Attractive To Criminals And Homicidal Maniacs?
clear

Isn't that the question that ought to be asked all over the Western world? Not to try to say that the mentally ill, who just happen to be converts to Islam, kill people, but that those who are psychically off, if they convert to anything, nowadays will almost certainly to convert to Islam.

So what is it about Islam that makes it so attractive to them?

Let's give the answers now, again, before some clever fellows apply for a government grant of five or perhaps ten million dollars to answer, after ponderous studies, involving lots and lots of researchers, and papers, and conferences, and come, finally, tortuously, to the conclusions which you and I can come to right now, and spoil their well-paid, overpaid, fun.

1. Islam offers a Total Regulation of Life. Like the Junior Woodchucks of America, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, you get special Arabic words to learn: Allahu Akbar, alhumdulillah, Jihad, Kuffar, things like that. You get to make up a special name, in Arabic, for yourself. It can express your origin in a particular country: Al-Amriki, Al-Frangi, Al-Britani, just the way those to the manner born can be called Al-Misri (from Egypt) or Al-Shami or Al-Hijazi. You can give yourself a new first name: Stephen might choose to become Suleiman. It's such fun. A new identity, and an instant Community of Bruvvers, fellow Believers, one for all and all for one (that can be especially important in prison).

2. Islam offers a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. Life is so confusing, so overwhelming. But to the True Believer, life suddenly beomes simple. See Eric Hoffer. There is the Enemy -- in Islam,it's the non-Muslims, the Unbelievers, the Kuffars, the Ungrateful Ones. .There is the Cause for which one subsumes one's own personality (not that such people ever had much of one to begin with), ready to do everything, ideally, for that Cause. And Islam is all about a Cause -- the Cause of Islam itself. The true object of worship in Islam is not Allah, but Islam. It is for Islam that we live and die. And Muslims, to the precise extent that they take Islam to heart (and someone may not take Islam to heart, and then do so, but converts ordinarily are among the most fanatical, the least willilng to modify their behavior, or to embarrassedly or uneasily try to ignore some of the tenets and teachings of Islam).

3. In prisons in the Western world, where Musliims represent such a disproportionate number of those incarcerated (in France Muslims may be 5% of the population, but constitute 60% of the prison population, and similar figures can be found in every other country in Western Europe) Islam is attractive as a Gang, the biggest and most dangerous Gang, and the one you want to belong to, for your own protection against others, and of course, against that Muslim Gang. Western governments have yet to do the obvious and sane thing, which would be to put Muslims in prisons for Muslims only, keeping them away from others who might otherwise convert to this dangerous doctrine.

4. Islam legitimizes criminal behavior. It makes the convert feel good about his behavior, not ashamed or guilty. Have you raped, or stolen from, or killed people, peope who are not Muslims? That's not only not a crime, but they have it coming to them. Not only have you not done wrong, but if you continue to do what you are doing, you can see it in a new light: you are merely helping yourself to the Jizyah that the Infidel nation-state, for now, prevents you from claiming. If you rape seductively-dressed Western women, that is women who aren't wearing a niqab, or chador, or even a hijab, and whose skirts may be short, and who may wear lipstick and rouge, then they are asking for it. The little English girls who were made sex slaves deserved what they got. So for a certain kind of convert to Islam, his life now becomes justifiable; he's been a warrior for Islam all along.

5. Islam provides a permanent source of enmity -- the Infidel -- whom you can blame for all of your woes. That's very relaxing. In the Western world, we find so many different things to blame if things go wrong -- and things always go wrong. But in Islam, you can always blame the Infidel for everything. And that's what Musilms do, with their conspiracy theorizing, all the time.

6. So that's why criminals and homicidal maniacs find Islam so attractive. Do you know of any homicidal maniacs who decided to convert to Judaism or Buddhism? No, I haven't, either. And if a criminal converts to Christianity, say in prison, aren't we all relieved to hear it, don't you feel he's done the one thing that might help change him? Of course you do. Now imagine the glad tidings reach you that that same prisoner converted not to Christianity, but to Islam. Now how do you feel?

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 11:23 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Abbas' Advisor: Murderer Of Baby A "Heroic Martyr"
clear

Story at Palestinian Media Watch, here.

Shouldn't the Israeli government put a full stop right there, and demand that Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazen, or whatever he calls himself, denounce that advisor, and if he refuses to do so, end all discussions about discussing anything with him, and focus on that just that one but representative event, and in the Western world, many are now willing to listen, not because they have educated themselves about the Muslim Arab Jihad against Israel, or about the Mandate for Palestine, or about the Treaty of San Remo, but because the world's Muslims, and especially the Islamic State, are giving everyone a quick and unavoidable education in Islam. And the dots connecting this to the war on Islam will, I think, finally be made by more than an (un) happy few.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 11:19 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Thomas Meaney On Azar Nafisi
clear

Amusing to think that Azar Nafisi, who surely owes royaties to the Estate of Vladimir Nabokov for the use of Lolita in her first book's title ("Reading Lolita In Teheran" -- substitute any other title and you will see at once how much less interesting and seductive the title becomes), apparently does not agree with Nabokov that books are not to be read for some moral lesson. She's got the usual complaints about America, and while many are true,her repetition of the charges (Money as the Measure of All Things, the Death of Reading, the Stifling Quality of Corporate Culture), the banality of her presentation, her lack of subtlety (possibly, given her background, literary criticism as it is understood in the West is beyond her; there are no Iranian Empsons or Rickses). And she's often off; "Babbitt" is about minds, minds reduced to, and happy wallowing in, nonstop banality ("A Babbitt Met a Bromide On The Avenue One Day"), not about the evils of corporations. It is a travesty to bring Obama into a discussion of humorful "Huckleberry Finn." Her specal pleading, for the wonder-working of diversification of America, brought about as a consequence of the 1965 Immigration Act that has done so much damage to cultural and other kinds of coherence and cohesion, may strike some as ungrateful.

Here is Thomas Meaney's review of Azar Nafisi, with many palpable hits.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 11:03 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Geert Wilders Interviewed in the American Spectator
clear

From the American Spectator:

Geert Wilders is the founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom, the fourth largest in that country’s parliament, and perhaps the Netherlands’ most controversial political figure. Wilders, whose 2008 film Fitna confrontationally opposed the encroachment of Islamic culture into Europe, has become an international figure while being prosecuted for “hate speech.” Calling himself a “right-wing liberal,” Wilders advocates curbing immigration into the Netherlands and other Western countries from Islamic nations, closing radical mosques, denaturalizing violent Muslims, and reducing the power of the European Union, among other things.

In America this week for a one-week tour, Wilders chatted with The American Spectator about Islam, the civilizational conflict, and what must be done to keep the West free.

How big is the threat to the West from Islamic civilizational jihad? Is our focus on terrorism overlooking other, perhaps more insidious means?

Islam is a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination. It wants to establish a worldwide caliphate, ruled by Sharia law — undemocratic, intolerant, barbarian, inhuman.

Terror and violence are just one method which is used in order to achieve this aim. There are other methods, such as conquest by hijra (immigration). Muhammad himself gave this example of hijra when he conquered Medina. This town, which was originally a tolerant and partly Jewish oasis, became Islamic after Muhammad and his followers settled there and took it over.

Western leaders focus solely on terrorism, but fail to see the purpose which terrorism is serving: Islamic word dominance. They should focus on fighting the global imperialist plans of Islam and treat terrorism as one of the means used to achieve this goal.

How would you characterize the Dutch experience in assimilating Muslims?

The Netherlands failed to assimilate Islam. So did the other European nations.

Western Europe is in the grip of cultural relativism. It no longer believes in the superiority of its own Western Judeo-Christian and humanist values. These Western values have brought Europe peace, prosperity, liberty, and democracy. But, unfortunately, European political leaders no longer seem to understand this.

The newcomers were not asked to assimilate. On the contrary, the Europeans told newcomers settling in their nations: you are free to violate our norms and values because your culture is just as good, and perhaps even better, than ours. Muslims were allowed to build enclaves on European soil, where Western values are despised and hated.

The Islamization of Western Europe is a direct result of this. European nations did not assimilate Islam but rather encouraged it to continue to live according to its culture, which is intolerant, inferior, and totally incompatible with Europe’s culture and civilization.

How do you resuscitate traditional Western culture in the face of the encroachment we're seeing? Or is Europe inevitably lost? 

The European nations need to rediscover and reassert their identity. If Europe fails to stand up for its own culture and identity, it, will, indeed, be lost to Islam. Time is running out. Islam is assertive and aggressive. Europe should be assertive in countering Islam. Europe needs to turn the tide of Islamization and start a de-Islamization process.

Here are five things which should be done:

1) Europe should close its borders to all immigration from Islamic countries.

2) It should stimulate voluntary re-emigration;

3) and it should expel all criminals with a dual nationality to the country of their other nationality.

4) It should demand that everyone with a passport from an Islamic country, who wishes to remain living in Western Europe, sign a declaration in which he or she distances himself or herself from Sharia law and the violent commands of the Koran.

5) People who join the jihad have to be expelled, even it they only have our nationality. They can go and live in the Islamic State and no longer belong here. 

What message can you offer Americans about the threat posed by Islam and efforts to stifle freedom of speech critical of Islam? 

Americans are more patriotic than Europeans. That is a good thing. Europe would be in a better shape if it were more patriotic. Americans should cherish their pride in being American. They should insist that everyone who settles in America accept its values, which are based on its Western Judeo-Christian heritage.

America should close its borders to immigration from Islamic countries. There is more than enough Islam in America already.

Freedom of speech is a very important American value. In many European countries, people criticizing Islam are prosecuted. Telling the truth about Islam is considered to be offensive, because Islam feels offended by it. But the truth can never be offensive and people should never refrain from speaking it.

America should recognize that ISIS is an offspring of Islam. What ISIS does is what Islam commands. The Koran is full of commands such as sura 47 verse 4 “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and cause a bloodbath among them.” When Obama, John Kerry, the British Prime Minister David Cameron, and others say that “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam” they are talking politically correct nonsense. 

Is Dutch public sentiment actively opposed to the Islamist threat, or are your countrymen still largely unconcerned? Is this a situation where the political class is being unresponsive to the concerns of the citizenry as well as oblivious to a societal threat to your country?

I never use the word “Islamist”, because there is only one Islam: the Islam of the Koran and of Muhammad.

Growing numbers of Dutch people are aware that Islam does not belong here because Islamic values are incompatible with our own. A poll last June showed that two thirds of the Dutch say that the Islamic culture does not belong in the Netherlands. The political class, however, does not voice the concerns of the people. This phenomenon can be seen elsewhere in Europe, too. It is the reason why the traditional political parties are rapidly losing the support of the people. 

Are reforms to free speech controls needed in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe to avoid further prosecutions of Islam’s critics? Is such reform possible? 

Islam is currently the greatest threat to the survival of our civilizations. People who warn against this threat, such as myself, are both threatened by Muslims who want to kill them for speaking the truth about Islam, and are at the same time prosecuted by the European authorities who want to silence them because they speak the truth about Islam. This is ridiculous. People should be allowed to speak the truth about the biggest danger that is currently threatening the survival of our Western civilization and the future prosperity and freedom of our children.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 7:47 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
The West Wins, in Spite of Itself
clear

A merciful confluence of events is softening the impact of the foreign-policy errors of the United States and its traditional allies. It must be allowed that U.S. foreign policy in this new century has been a bipartisan failure. There has not really been a policy that could be sustained, or that any sane foreign-policy architect would wish to sustain for more than a few years. Through much of the Obama administration and the preceding Bush era, almost the entire ground-forces combat potential of the United States was mired in the Middle East, while the Western alliance has steadily loosened, and the United States has withdrawn toward its own shores. As has been endlessly recounted, the country has become, in Peggy Noonan’s phrase, “war-wary” — as the Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq Wars (though not the Gulf War of 1991) dragged on interminably and only the Korean and possibly Afghanistan Wars produced even a partially satisfactory outcome. Nowhere was the United States defeated militarily, but it suffered serious strategic setbacks in Vietnam and Iraq. The impulse to be less internationally adventurous is understandable, and the implosion of the Soviet Union drastically reduced the need for American-led resistance to anti-democratic forces in the world. From the end of the Cold War there was much talk of the “peace dividend,” and it was assumed that substantially less resources could be consecrated to national defense.

But as has been lamented here and elsewhere, as brilliant as the containment strategy, pursued from the Truman through to the elder-Bush administration, was, no articulated or consistent policy has succeeded it. George H. W. Bush spoke of a “new world order,” and he and his secretary of state, James Baker, had considerable aptitude for organizing foreign affairs. Amiable ad hoc policymaking followed with President Clinton, but with finesse in the expansion of NATO, firmness in the Straits of Formosa, and considerable grit in pursuing the North American Free Trade Area. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on New York and Washington understandably distracted the George W. Bush administration, which then propagated the theory that, as democracies don’t make war on one another, democracy should be indiscriminately promoted. This policy took no account of the fact that, when democratically consulted, countries not accustomed to democracy frequently elevate anti-democratic movements. This is what occurred in Gaza with Hamas, Lebanon with Hezbollah, and Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Obama administration has been incoherent and dissimulative: promoting democracy in Egypt and ignoring the undemocratic encroachments of the resulting Muslim Brotherhood, drawing and then backing off a red line in Syria, moving from “reset” with Russia to sanctions largely on the rich friends of the Kremlin, pretending that terrorism had been eliminated in the aftermath of the tragic fiasco at Benghazi, and snorting back at the unforeseen Islamic State only when it began jubilantly decapitating Americans on film. (This “junior varsity,” as the president described it, would not have arisen if the U.S. had not so abruptly withdrawn completely from Iraq, leaving the country to crumble under the ungrateful Iranian puppet Maliki. This was not the disposition for which Americans fought and died there.) The somewhat indecorous move to the exit in the Middle East was covered for a time with a lot of portentous talk about a “pivot to Asia” that in fact consisted of putting a small detachment of Marines at Darwin, Australia, which has not been troubled by an intruder since a Japanese air raid more than 60 years ago.

In general, it must be said that American foreign policy was spectacularly successful from Roosevelt’s quarantine Speech of 1937 through to the Democratic emasculation of the Nixon administration and abandonment of Indochina in 1973–75, that it fully recovered its senses with Reagan and Shultz and George H. W. Bush in the Eighties (though the Bush-Baker lectures in Kiev and Belgrade on the virtues of the Russian and Yugoslav federations were ill-considered)​, and that President Clinton’​s generally plausible improvisations in the Nineties did include mortally under-calibrated responses to the Khobar Towers, East African embassies, and USS Cole terrorist attacks that incited the outrage of 9/11. But there is no precedent in American history for foreign-policy planning to have simply walked off the cliff as it has in the last decade.

However, where deliberate policy has failed, the natural forces of regional power balances have miraculously come to the aid of the West.

 

As the United States has pulled back, most of its longtime allies have been exposed as having been egregious freeloaders. During the Cold War, the Europeans claimed that the greater risk imposed upon them by relative proximity to the Soviet threat could be fairly compensated for by the greater defense burden borne by the United States. When the Cold War ended and the Euro-federalists had the upper hand in Western Europe, there was much talk of a European strike force and “projection of Europe’s influence” in the world. It was all nonsense, of course; Bosnia was “the hour of Europe,” said the chief European official (Jacques Poos), but a few weeks later the Europeans were begging for American assistance. France’s President Sarkozy and Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron plunged into Libya to rid it of Moammar Qaddafi but ran out of ordnance in a few days and had to be resupplied by the United States.

Europe has no influence anywhere, and, among its important member states, the only ones pulling their weight are the British (almost always relatively reliable) and the Poles, who are, after all, on the edge of the historic volcano. Of the G-7 leaders (mercifully, Russia’s sojourn in that group has been terminated), Canada’s Harper talks a good game but he has so reduced Canada’s defense capability that his voice doesn’t count for much. Germany’s Merkel is also quite sound, but she has allowed German military capabilities to deteriorate badly and is hamstrung by the ideological schizophrenia of her grand-coalition partner, the Social Democrats. She has not even appreciably reduced German imports of Russian natural gas, though other and friendlier sources, especially Canada and the United States, are available. Japan’s Prime Minster Abe is energetic and clear-sighted, but is still struggling to end the prolonged agony of Japanese economic sluggishness. The American, British, and French leaders are not up to it, and the Italian leader has compromised authority in a divided and economically and politically demoralized country.

But in the vacuum left by the feckless lassitude of the U.S. and Western Europe, the Chinese have overplayed their hand in Burma and virtually been expelled, and in the China Sea they have brought together a tightening coalition of India (now under the most impressive and sensibly purposeful leader in its post-British history, Narendra Modi), Abe’s rearming Japan, Indonesia under its reform president-elect (Joko Widodo), the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Australia (now led by the strongest leader of the traditional Anglo-Saxon countries, Tony Abbott). As those countries, which are collectively 20 percent more populous and have a substantially larger collective GDP than China, spontaneously counteract Chinese friskiness, an unimaginably benign scenario is unfolding in the Middle East. Beneath the near-hysteria about 20,000 to 30,000 Islamic State fanatics, the West has won the bounce. The 900-pound gorilla in the room in the Middle East for 90 years, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, fumbled its way out of popularity and power and we dodged that bullet; and the Saudis, who have done much that has made it hard for us to like them and are a model of illiberal government, have become so exasperated with the antics of Iran in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza, and with Russian meddling in the region, that they have sharply increased oil production. This, coupled with rising American production and the long-expected decline in Chinese oil imports as that country’s economic growth has slowed (despite the deafening decades-long alarm of those who thought the Chinese progress to headship of the world on a quick march was inexorable), has lowered the world oil price, from $100 per barrel to around $80. The Saudis can continue this to $50 without serious inconvenience to themselves, but Iran and Russia will be in financial extremis anywhere below $70. 

The Saudi oil-price offensive is the chief explanation for Russia’s sudden retreat from the Ukrainian border, and if Iran does not mend its ways, its economic condition will, in Hillary Clinton’s infamous threat, become “crippling” after all. This development coincides with the United States’s quiet strengthening of Israel’s ability to destroy the Iranian nuclear program from the air, on the condition that no such attack can be undertaken without American agreement (giving Washington plausible deniability). Such an Israeli strike would be greeted with relief, if mutedly, by the Turks, Saudis, and Egyptians, as the Jewish state would have done the world’s dirty work for it again. Turkey, though it should be advised that it is close to expulsion from NATO because of its adversarial behavior, has lightly supported the anti-Assad and anti-extremist forces in Syria. In the Middle East as in the Far East, the correlation of regional forces is realigning in terms that are convenient for the West. The Russian de-escalation of the Ukrainian crisis, under the Saudi pressure on oil prices, after completely outmaneuvering the Americans and Germans, is a bonus. It is a little like the Saudi-generated rollback of oil prices to squeeze the USSR in the mid Eighties, after the Reagan administration sold Saudi Arabia AWACS air-defense aircraft.

It is right that these regions should sort themselves out. It all could have been faster, less suspenseful, and more gratifying to the West if our own statesmen could claim any contribution to this dénouement (though Obama may deserve credit for helping to enable Israel opposite Iran, after long restraining and harassing that country). The contemptible defeatism of the Pentagon and the State Department over the heroic Kurdish defense of the Syrian town of Khobani is a particular contrast with the bold conduct of indigenous ISIS opponents. Let no one now doubt the occurrence of miracles: As our official statesmanlike aptitudes fled, fortune astonishingly appeared, clad mainly in the distinct apparel of the House of Saud. Americans may have more blessings than they imagined to keep in mind this Thanksgiving, even if their own leadership is not among them. 

First published in National Review.

— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, A Matter of Principle, and Flight of the Eagle: The Grand Strategies That Brought America from Colonial Dependence to World Leadership. He can be reached at [email protected] .

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 5:45 AM by Conrad Black
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Eric Zemmour's Le Suicide Francais And Its Effect
clear

Le Suicide francais, a best-seller, and being read. and understood.

Here.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 5:31 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Dore Gold Interviewed on Defensible Borders for Israel
clear

In Mosaic magazine:

How has the tumult in the Middle East affected the debate over Israel’s territorial requirements? For an answer, Mosaic approached Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who has long promoted the concept of defensible borders primarily as a means of meeting Israel’s security needs in the West Bank. Our exchange was conducted by email. 

Q. Before we get to the idea of “defensible borders” itself, can you begin by telling us about your involvement in it?  

A: I became immersed in this issue when I was serving as foreign-policy adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his first term in the late 1990s. I was tasked with converting the IDF’s “Interests Map” for the West Bank into a form that could be presented to President Bill Clinton; I joined the prime minister for that presentation in the White House Map Room. Four years later, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked me to condense the work for his meeting in the Oval Office with President George W. Bush.

This formed the nucleus of what, starting in 2005, would become a series of monographs on the subject published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Copiously illustrated with maps and photographs, they featured essays by such prominent authors as Moshe Yaalon, now Israel’s defense minister, Yaakov Amidror, until recently Israel’s national security adviser, and Major General (ret.) Uzi Dayan. The latest edition in the series was released this year, by coincidence just prior to the Gaza war. [Mosaic linked to a number of chapters here Eds.]

Q. What was the original idea, and has it changed at all in light of regional developments over the years?

A: The idea was first put forward by Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon after the Six-Day War of 1967. As commander of the pre-state Palmah, Allon was one of the architects of Israel’s national-security doctrine, and had also been a mentor of Yitzhak Rabin. His essential point was, and is, simple enough: Israel must retain certain territories on the West Bank for its security.

Q: What about the Palestinians? That land, after all, is increasingly referred to as occupied Palestinian territory.

A: Let’s back up a bit. At present, no one has sovereignty over the West Bank. The last sovereign power there was the Ottoman Empire, which formally renounced its claim after World War I. The West Bank then became a part of British Mandatory Palestine, which was designated to become the Jewish national home. The 1948 Arab war to annihilate the newly established state of Israel ended with the West Bank in Jordanian hands, and there it remained until 1967. In June of that year, Jordan joined an Arab war coalition, led by Egypt, that was aimed explicitly at finishing the job begun in 1948. That war ended with Israel in control of territory on several fronts, one of which was the West Bank.

Because Israel had acted in self-defense in 1967, noted scholars of international law, including Stephen Schwebel, who later served as president of the International Court of Justice, and Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and Under Secretary of State in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, recognized its claims as stronger than those of any other party. Indeed, UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the aftermath of the June 1967 war, affirmed that Israel was not required to withdraw fully from the West Bank or return to the pre-1967 lines, but rather was entitled to “secure and recognized boundaries” that were still to be determined through negotiation.

In short, the West Bank remains disputed territory to which both Israel and the Palestinians have claims. The West Bank is not “Palestinian” territory; there was no Palestinian state there prior to 1967, and the Palestinians never had sovereignty there. For its part, Israel has legal rights that need to be acknowledged, and security concerns that must be incorporated into any understanding of where the final borders will lie. One thing that Israeli prime ministers from Golda Meir to Benjamin Netanyahu have made clear is that Israel cannot withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines, which were a permanent invitation to attack—in a word, indefensible.

A: Are there Israeli experts who disagree with you? And have recent events, including in Gaza, strengthened their position or yours?

A: In the internal Israeli debate, some have argued that the whole concept of defensible borders has become outdated. In 1967, they remind us, the threat to Israel along its eastern front came from the combined strength of the armored and infantry formations of Syria and Jordan, plus an expeditionary force from Iraq. The IDF at the time was built around a small standing army that only gained full strength after the mobilization of reserves–which is why, if Israel were again to face a surprise attack, strategic depth was critical. It was in this environment that Yigal Allon put forward his plan.

And today? Israel remains a small country with a limited population base—certainly in comparison with its much larger neighbors—and there also remain real and persistent constraints on its ability to disperse its military capabilities. Critics of defensible borders like to point out that the constellation of hostile forces has changed markedly. The Syrian army has been badly degraded, the Iraqi army has been battered by war and domestic chaos, and Egypt and Jordan are at peace with Israel. Thus, they conclude, the danger of attack by large conventional armies is no longer. Of course there is terrorism, but that’s a different matter, and besides, the critics say, it’s not on the same scale as the previous threats faced by Israel.

My response is that, for at least the short term, the terrorist threat to Israel from the east is unlike anything we have seen before in terms of scale and character. Terror used to be conducted by small squads of three to five men who penetrated Israel’s borders in order to seize hostages or place explosive devices under vehicles or in public places. Today, organizations like the Islamic State (IS), in possession of robust weaponry that includes sophisticated anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, have defeated whole divisions of the Iraqi army and confiscated vast amounts of equipment and money.

This year, operating with battalion-size formations, IS and its ideological cousin the al-Nusra Front have defeated Syrian armored forces and made deep inroads into the heart of Iraq. Despite recent setbacks thanks to American-led airstrikes, this is no mere tactical nuisance.

As for the longer term, no one can speak with any certainty. It’s true that, for the moment, a conventional assault by an existing state is unlikely. But the Middle East region is changing so dramatically before our eyes that Israel needs to be prepared for any eventuality. 

Q: Even without an army like IS’s, Hamas was able to smuggle weapons into Gaza and tunnel its way into Israel itself. Doesn’t that call into question the idea of defensible borders on the West Bank?

A: To the contrary. The war this summer disclosed the sheer size of the arsenal that Hamas had managed to build up over the years. But how did most of those weapons arrive? In withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, Israel gave up a strip of land on the perimeter, called the Philadelphi Route, which had served to separate Gaza from the Egyptian Sinai. Thereafter, the number of tunnels under this route mushroomed, as did the quantity and quality of the weapons passing through them to Hamas and other groups.

On the West Bank, our outer perimeter is the Jordan Valley, which Israel controls. If Israel were to withdraw from the valley, weapons would flow to areas adjacent to Israeli cities.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Shoulder-fired missiles that can take down aircraft were found among the items smuggled into Gaza. No such weapons have been brought into the West Bank—yet. If they did get in, the security of Ben-Gurion airport would be placed at severe risk. To guarantee a demilitarized West Bank, then, Israel must retain the Jordan Valley, the functional equivalent of Gaza’s Philadelphi Route.

Q: Many commentators insist that, since Israel has such a strong army, it can afford to be more forthcoming with concessions and take greater risks for peace. 

A: We’ve just gone through the third Gaza war. The first time we withdrew from Gaza, it was said reassuringly that if Hamas failed to keep the peace, we could just re-invade and resume our control of the territory; what’s more, if attacked by even a single rocket, we would have international legitimacy to retaliate with the full power of the IDF.

We learned, painfully, that this was not the case. Israeli towns came under attack by Hamas rockets that were embedded in Palestinian civilian areas, making the effective use of Israel’s superior power much more difficult. Not only that, but after finally taking action in Operation Cast Lead in 2009, Israel was pilloried by the Goldstone Report and faced international condemnation at the UN Human Rights Council. The same thing is happening now, in a diplomatic atmosphere that if anything is more hostile, and more solidly stacked against Israel, than before.

My conclusion: it’s far better for Israel not to put itself in a position in which its vulnerabilities invite aggression but it is unable to respond with power. Once again, strategic depth makes a difference.

Q: A final question. You argue that the Jordan Valley must be kept under Israeli control. Why can’t Israel agree to international peacekeeping teams instead of the IDF, as is often proposed?

A: Israel has always been reluctant to base its defense on international forces, and when it’s agreed to them it has suffered. Under challenge, such forces invariably back down or collapse. During the lead-up to the 1967 Six-Day War, President Nasser of Egypt demanded that the UN withdraw its peacekeeping force in Sinai. UN Secretary-General U Thant agreed to Nasser’s demand, thereby removing the lone buffer between Israel’s southern border and 90,000 massed Egyptian troops.

It used to be said that no one would ever dare attack international peacekeepers; the thought was just too outrageous to be entertained. That illusion has likewise been put to rest over the years. Overt acts of aggression can force UN peacekeepers to leave, while the mere threat of aggression has demonstrably compromised their neutrality or led to their being co-opted by enemy forces like Hizballah. Only the other week, on Israel’s Golan Heights border with Syria, the al-Nusra front captured a contingent of Fijian soldiers from the UN Disengagement Observer Force and successfully held them for ransom. For all of these reasons, Israel’s position has always been that it cannot leave itself exposed, and must defend itself by itself.

As for the Jordan Valley, it’s worth remembering that, a month before his assassination in November 1995, Yitzhak Rabin declared in the Knesset that the future security border of Israel would be in the Jordan Valley, in the widest sense of that geographical term.

This is what’s meant by defensible borders. Until the lion lies down with the lamb, there is simply no alternative to them, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that fact.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 5:17 AM by Geoffrey Clarfield
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Paris Opera lays down rules over Muslim veils
clear

From the French edition of The Local

The management at Paris Opera have issued a memo to staff not to allow entry to anyone whose face is covered. It comes after a Muslim woman was asked to leave a performance of La Traviata earlier this month after she was spotted wearing a niqab face veil.

A memo to staff, that was seen by Le Monde newspaper, instructs them that entry should be denied to anyone whose face is hidden by "a veil, a mask or a hood". It was signed by Deputy Director Jean-Philippe Thiellay the day after a Muslim woman from the Gulf region, who was sitting on the front row, was spotted by actors wearing a full face veil, at a performance of La Traviata.

After they reportedly threatened not to sing unless something was done, staff approached the woman asking her to leave if she refused to take off her veil.In the end she and her husband decided to leave the show of their own accord.

Opera management admitted they are unsure how the woman was able to gain entry to the auditorium without being approached by staff.

Opera staff have been reminded that any head covering where only the eyes are visible is illegal, although wearing a Muslim headscarf that only covers the hair is permitted. "Naturally, in the case of employees of the Opera, professional clothing or artistic costumes are exempt from this ban," the memo to staff read.

Staff were also reminded however that only the police in France have the power to forcibly remove someone’s veil or physically eject them from a place. In the aftermath of the incident at the opera, France’s Ministry of Culture said they intended to issue a reminder of the law to all theatres, museums and other state institutions.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 3:16 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 23 October 2014
Suspected Ottawa Gunman Likely Mentally Ill: Friend of Shooter
clear

But he was kind to his old Mum, and "brought her flowers and that". Here comes the usual nonsense from a fellow convert at the mosque.

From the Globe and Mail

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the slain 32-year-old suspected killer of a Canadian Forces soldier near Parliament Hill, was a labourer and small-time criminal – a man who had had a religious awakening and seemed to have become mentally unstable. Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was born in 1982 and was the son of Bulgasem Zehaf, a Quebec businessman who appears to have fought in 2011 in Libya, and Susan Bibeau, the deputy chairperson of a division of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board. The two were divorced in 1999. So his childhood was not exactly poor and downtrodden then. 

Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau grew up in Eastern Canada, including Ottawa and Montreal, and had spent time in Libya before moving to Western Canada to become a miner and labourer, according to friend Dave Bathurst. Mr. Bathurst said he met Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau in a Burnaby, B.C., mosque about three years ago.

He said his friend did not at first appear to have extremist views or inclinations toward violence – but at times exhibited a disturbing side. “We were having a conversation in a kitchen, and I don’t know how he worded it: He said the devil is after him,” Mr. Bathurst said in an interview. He said his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world – an Arabic term for devils and demons. “I think he must have been mentally ill.”

Mr. Bathurst last saw Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau praying in a Vancouver-area mosque six weeks ago. He spoke of wanting to go to the Middle East soon. Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was blocked from fulfilling those plans. Sources say he intended to travel abroad, but he had not been able to secure a valid travel document from federal officials, who have been taking measures to prevent Canadians from joining extremists overseas.

His father’s history offers a hint of what Mr. Bathurst was concerned about. In 2011, a Montrealer named “Belgasem Zahef” was quoted in a Washington Times dispatch from the front in Libya, where he had travelled to join the rebel fight.

At the Burnaby mosque, Mr. Bathurst said his friend’s “erratic” behaviour – he did not elaborate – caused frictions with the elders at the house of worship, who asked him to stop attending prayers.

Some of the facts of Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau’s life bear broad parallels to another Canadian terrorist who surfaced this week – Martin Couture-Rouleau, another “high-risk traveller” who police shot dead in Quebec Monday after he ran down two soldiers. But while Mr. Couture-Rouleau is not known to be connected to any other terrorism suspects, Mr. Bathurst said his friend knew Hasibullah Yusufzai, a Vancouver-area resident who was charged in July by the RCMP with travelling to Syria with the intent of joining a deadly terrorist group.

Authorities have issued an international warrant for Mr. Yusufzai, but he remains at large.

Mr. Bathurst said he believes the two cases are distinct. “I don’t think they were linked,” he said, explaining how the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had called him to ask about Mr. Yusufzai but not Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau. 

clear
Posted on 10/23/2014 2:57 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Boy Returns To Yemen To "Get In Touch With His Roots"
clear
clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 7:52 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
A Musical Interlude: The Varsity Drag (Penny Singleton)
clear

Listen (and watch) here

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 6:17 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
In The Islamic State, The Diwan Of Knowledge Goes To Work
clear

In the Islamic State, the Diwan of Knowledge issues its curriculum guidelines and dress code.

Details here.

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 6:13 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Bill Maher On Asya Bibi's Death Sentence In Pakistan
clear

It was not a lone killer, Maher notes, but the High Court of Pakistan, enforcing the law of Islam, the Shari'a, which Pakistani law takes as a model (though it does not yet coincide completey with it), that reaffirmed the death sentence for a Christian woman who was accused of saying something bad about Islam.

 

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 12:07 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
ISIS Graduation Ceremony, Graduates Trained In Three Things
clear

You can view the graduation ceremony here. No speeches were given by someone telling the graduates to "follow their bliss" and  to "give something back." They're already following their bliss. And soon enough, all over the Middle East and the Western world, just like those who graduated before them, or as adept auto-didacts needed no further training, they'll be giving something back.

There are three equally indispensable parts to that training. The first two will be familiar to those who have undergone basic training in any military, but take careful note of the third:

1. Physical figtness.

2  Weapons training

3. Shari'a.

 

Got that? Shari'a. That is the constitution of the Caliphate, of any Caliphate. And since Obama, and Kelly, and Cameron, and so many other Western leaders, and so many Muslim leaders and spokesmen and propagandists, too, have told us that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, then when a carefully-crafted law is passed that will allow us to declare war on the Islamic State, and on those who give aid and comfort to the Islamic State's sole goals -- the removal of all obstacles to the spread of Islam, in order to make sure that the Shari'a, sooner or later, is imposed everywhere -- they will not be able to call this an attack on Islam, because nothing that the Islamic State wants, they are all repeatedly on record as declaring, has "anything to do with Islam."

The proposal I made earlier today at NER, about the careful crafting of a Declaration of War,  was important. I think it deserves attention elsewhere. Please help to disseminate the idea.

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 11:34 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Muslim Killers Attack Parliament Building And Other Targets In Ottawa
clear

Breaking story here.

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 11:21 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Ottawa:Shots fired on Parliament Hill, multiple injuries reported
clear

From Canada.Com

Shots were fired on Parliament Hill and at the nearby Canadian War Memorial on Wednesday morning, and one uniformed soldier guarding the cenotaph was injured and taken to hospital.

A dark-clothed gunman fired the shots just before 10 a.m. at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and  is still on the loose, according to multiple reports. He is said to have fled for Parliament Hill, where more shots were heard in Centre Block. Shots were also heard within the main legislative building that includes the Peace Tower, near the Library of Parliament.

Ottawa police have tweeted confirmation shots were fired near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. One person was injured, a soldier who has been taken to hospital. CPR was being performed on the victim at the war memorial before he was taken to hospital. Soldiers post guard at the war memorial 24 hours, seven days a week.

There are multiple reports the active shooter is dead, though amid all the confusion there’s concern of a second shooter.

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 9:50 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
A Musical Interlude: The Little Things You Used To Do (Helen Morgan)
clear

Listen here.

clear
Posted on 10/22/2014 7:39 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Trying To Remember Not To Forget
clear

I used to be able to remember everything, about everything. I could recall everything, always, no matter what. But that's not true anymore.

Last night I tried to remember the name of a female professor I had seen, not a week ago, at a symposium I crashed. I had disliked her for decades, but mainly by reputation, and when I saw her, and heard her speak, gesticulating with both hands, I had further reason to dislike her. So I ought to have remembered her name last night. And when I couldn't, this sent me into a frenzy. But I read Peter De Vries -- there is no frigate like a book, to take us lands away -- and went to sleep.

But I didn't forget my ordeal. Just a few minutes ago, I remembered that last night I couldn't remember something. But I couldn't remember exactly what it was that I had been unable to remember. Then, magically, I suddenly remembered what it was I had been trying to remember ("name of obnoxious professor at symposium") and then, a second later, I managed somehow, squeezing the meninges, to remember her name.

If you are of a certain age, and worried about such things, you'll know how relieved I was.

Whew.

clear