Israel is having its fate decided by the American government, in its negotiations with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If Iran becomes -- has the "capability" of quickly becoming -- a nuclear power, it is not the Americans who will suffer, not their country that will be destroyed, but Israel. That is why one should be put in mind of Czechoslovakia, and the wretched performance of Chamberlain and Daladier, in so misunderstanding both those they were dealing with, and what was at stake. Netanyahu knows the rulers -- the clerics and military men -- who control the Islamic Republic, and he knows what is at stake, for Israel, for the Middle East, and for the rest of the world.
The American negotiatiors have retreated far, very far, from their original position. And what is peculiar is that they have done this at the very time when the Islamic Republic of Iran is weaker than ever. The oil revenues have beenb cut in half in less than a year. The rainfall on which agriculture depends has not arrived, and the famous system of irrigation tubes that Iran has depended on for several millennia has not rescued the situation. Tens of thousands of Iranian girls now ply their trade as prostitutes in the Gulf, to rich Arab customers; millions of Iranian young people are drug addicts; the birth rate among educated Iranians has plunmeted; the dreams of some that Iran could "lead the Muslim world" have collapsed, for those who have eyes to see, because everywhere Sunnis are killing Shi'a, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, in Syria, and not even an Iranian atomic weapon or two used against Israel will turn the Shi'a into full-fledged Muslims in Sunni eyes; they are, they have been, they will remain despised and, for some, Infidels, even "the worst kind of Infidels." In such circumstances, it ought to have been the American government that hardened its positionm, and did not yield, but the reverse has occurred. Why?
John Kerr i, part of an administration that has continually treated Isreal with contumely (remember the comments during the Gaza campaign? Or, just the other day, the labelling of Israeli "settlement" activity as illegal, when it not only not illegal, but specificallly to be encouraged under the still-relevant terms of the Mandate for Palestine, which applies to the territories which Israel took possession of through force of arms in the Six-Day War, but to which it had a prior, an outstanding, legal, historic, and moral claim based on the Mandate itself, and on all the rules of warfare and post-bellum settlements since time began)a government that has failed to notice how weak the Islamic Republic of Iran has become, with its annual rainfall diminishing, its oil revenues cut in half, its borders worrisomely open to attack by Sunnis in Baluchistan and Kurds in Kurdistan. And there are Azeris, preferring to be independent of the Persians, looking to Azerbaijan.
And Kerry has the gall to declare that if the Israelis dare to drop hints as to the colossal and dangerous concessions that the Americans are now ready to make, have already agreed to make, that it is they who wll "have betryaed the trust." This is not tolerable.
Netanyahu Addresses Iran Nuclear Threat at AIPAC amidst Administration Criticism
Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu at AIPAC Washington Policy Conference
March 2, 2015
Source: GPO/Amos Ben Gershom
An audience of 16,000 at the AIPAC Washington Policy Conference enthusiastically welcomed Israeli PM Netanyahu’s appearance, today. Netanyahu's speech was a prelude to his appearance before a joint Session of Congress tomorrow at 10:45AM EST. It will be televised by Fox-News and C-SPAN. Fox will have commentary from a panel both prior to and following Netanyahu’s Congressional speech. The Voice of Israel will broadcast it live via the internet with following commentary.
Some likened today's remarks as a warm up to the main event on Tuesday, March 3rd. For many of us his AIPAC Conference remarks today were punctuated by his eloquent Churchillian cadences. Other lines echoed Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s 1938 Tish B’Av “Ihr Kommt” (they’re coming) speech to Jews in Poland warning them of their impending destruction during Hitler’s Final Solution, the Holocaust. Other lines were reminiscent of Churchill’s caustic Parliamentary remarks on the Munich 1938 appeasement by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier acceding to Hitler’s demand that Czech President Eduard Benes unilaterally cede Sudetenland thus dismembering Czechoslovakia. All while Chamberlain waved that scrap of paper upon arrival at Heston aerodrome saying that he had achieved “peace for our times”. That imagery was captured in Netanyahu’s lavish praise heaped on Czech President Zeman who was on the dais at the AIPAC conference. Netanyahu thanked Zeman for the country’s enduring support for Zionism espoused by Czech Republic founder Thomas Masyrk and the material support the Czechs provided post WWII to Israel during the 1948-1949 War for Independence. That was captured in Netanyahu’s reference in his speech to the Czech rifle he trained with as an IDF Sayeret Matkal member.
Netanyahu paid copious respects to AIPAC officials, noted "no disrespect to President Obama", and pledged fealty to the long enduring bi-partisan US relations with ally Israel. An Israel, as he pointed out, that shared common Western values of freedom, liberty, civil and human rights for the Jewish nation’s citizens. He noted as one example prominent women jurists on its High Court and as CEOs of Israeli companies.
Screen shot of Global Map of Iran Terror used by PM Netanyahu at 2015 AIPAC
The purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel. Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Look at that graph. Look at that map. And you see on the wall, it shows Iran training, arming, dispatching terrorists on five continents. Iran envelopes the entire world with its tentacles of terror. This is what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons.
And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen.
And as prime minister of Israel, I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there's still time to avert them. For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.
Well, no more, no more.
The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over. Today in our sovereign state of Israel, we defend ourselves. And being able to defend ourselves, we ally with others, most importantly, the United States of America, to defend our common civilization against common threats.
In our part of the world and increasingly, in every part of the world, no one makes alliances with the weak. You seek out those who have strength, those who have resolve, those who have the determination to fight for themselves. That's how alliances are formed.
Watch this C-span video of Israeli PM Netanyahu’s remarks at the 2015 AIPAC Conference.
US UN Ambassador Power, speaking at AIPAC today, accorded respect for the enduring US-Israel alliance. She also said that the Administration would stop Iran from achieving a nuclear breakthrough:
The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Period.
We believe diplomacy is the preferred route to secure our shared aim. But if diplomacy fails, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran as well as everyone here. We will not let it happen. There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.
However, she tossed a barb at both Netanyahu and House Speaker Boehner for engaging in partisan politics with her remarks:
This partnership should never be politicized, and it cannot and will not be tarnished or broken. Debating the merits of a deal with Iran is legitimate. Politicizing that process is not. The stakes are too high for that.
For her appearance as an Administration senior official, she received a standing ovation from the 16,000 attendees at the Washington Convention Center site of the Conference.
Watch this C-Span video of US UN Ambassador Power’s remarks at the 2015 AIPAC conference.
More of the same followed from another Administration senior official, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, when she mounted the podium at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center to deliver her remarks. Rice appeared to be toeing the Administration line saying, “sound bites won't stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” Rice essentially denied the possibility of ending Iran’s nuclear enrichment saying:
[ getting Iran to] forego its domestic enrichment capacity entirely… as desirable as that would be … is neither realistic nor achievable. The plain fact is no one can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses.
She cautioned that it wasn't a "viable negotiating position" to attempt to block Iran from using its nuclear capacity for domestic energy reasons.
Now I want to be very clear: a bad deal is worse than no deal,
We have Israel's back come hell or high water.
Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel, it’s also an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.
Given Iran’s support for terrorism, the risk of a nuclear arms race in the region, and the danger to the entire global non-proliferation regime, Iran with a nuclear weapon would not just be a threat to Israel, it’s also an unacceptable threat to the United States of America.
We have Israel's back come hell or high water.
On sanctions, Rice made it abundantly clear why the Administration opposed any new legislation, saying:
We cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal [with Iran]. Sanctions, have never stopped Iran from advancing its [nuclear] program. New sanctions would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the U.S. to be blamed for causing negotiations with Iran to fail.
Not unlike Power, Rice received a standing ovation ironically for policies that she opposes. Note what blog Twitchyreported:
The highlight of her speech was undoubtedly the standing ovation she received for acknowledging the desire for a complete halt to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The look on her face while waiting for the cheers to die down so she could add “but” and finish her sentence: priceless.
Watch this You Tube video of the AIPAC audience applauding her and her befuddled expression:
That effectively shot down the faint hopes of many of the 16,000 in the Convention Center.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), co-author of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015 with new sanctions, stormed up to the podium at AIPAC to rebut Rice. He said:
Iran needs to understand that there are consequences to an impasse and those consequences are additional consequential sanctions.
As long as I have an ounce of fight left in me… Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon.
It will never threaten Israel or its neighbors, and it will never be in a position to star a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not on my watch.
Secretary of State Kerry, speaking from Geneva, Switzerland earlier today in the midst of discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, voiced concerns that ‘leaks’ by Israel might jeopardize the phased deal. Kerry said:
We are concerned by reports that suggest selective details of the ongoing negotiations will be discussed publicly in the coming days. Doing so would make it more difficult to reach the goal that Israel and others say they share in order to get to a good deal. Israel's security is absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds, but frankly so is the security of all of the other countries in the region. So is our security.
Kerry made a brief appearance at the UN Human Rights Commission today in Geneva voicing concerns about the panel’s pre-occupation with isolating Israel, saying:
We will oppose any effort by any group or participant in the U.N. system to arbitrarily and regularly delegitimize or isolate, Israel. No country should be free from scrutiny on human rights, but no country should be subjected to unfair or unfounded bias.
President Obama in a Reuters interview several hours after Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC expressed the view that the current discord would not seriously disrupt relations with Israel. Nevertheless he harshly criticized Netanyahu’s refrain about a bad deal emerging from the bi-lateral diplomatic discussions with Iran. He suggested the emerging 10 year deal with verifications was:
Far more effective in controlling their nuclear program than any military action we could take, any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions will be.
He then took exception to Netanyahu’s criticism of the 2013 interim agreement with Iran:
Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50 billion worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true. It has turned out that in fact, during this period we've seen Iran not advance its program. In many ways, it's rolled back elements of its program.
Watch this video of the Reuters interview with President Obama on March 2, 2015.
The Administration still hasn’t fully understood the import of the Gallup poll of Americans, 84% of whom expressed distrust of Iran, while 77% believed Iran should be denied becoming a nuclear threshold state. As one audience member said at a presentation in Northwest Florida, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon was a threat not only to Israel, but America as well.
An expectant Israel and the world awaits Netanyahu’s address before a joint session of Congress tomorrow.
Listen to this Voice of Israel Sound Cloud of Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC. The full text of Netanyahu’s AIPAC remarks can be found in this release by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The mosque in Cambridge on Prospect Street, just across from the first Bread and Circus (now folded into Whole Foods), is part of the larger Islamic Society of Boston. The names of the hitherto-secret funders are now known, and many of them turn out to be rich Saudis. That support, and the selling of land to the Islamic Society of Boston at 10% of its value, through the machbinations of a Muslim who worked for the city government (he's now gone, but the deal he masterminded has not been undone), explain how these mosques are built and the clerics paid. Similar investigations ought to be undertaken all over the country. It will become clear just how few of these structures are paid for by those who attend them-- it's foreign, chiefly Saudi and other Gulf money. And while Islam, the texts of Islam, are themselves dangerous, the ferocity with which certain parts of them are emphasized may depend partly on who has been paying the bills.
A restaurant boss groomed girls as young as 12 with gifts including fast food, cash and flowers, before plying them with booze, a court has heard. Married Mohammed Khubaib, 43, had an almost predatory interest in underage girls but claimed to be their friend, a jury was told.
He allegedly raped a girl of 14 after giving her booze, while his friend Manase Motaung, 32, is said to have raped a 16-year-old.
Khubaib usually gave his alleged victims vodka. He took one to McDonald's, gave her a £40 bunch of flowers for her 15th birthday and said he wanted to marry her, the Old Bailey heard.
He told another 15-year-old she had beautiful eyes but when she said he was too old for her, he allegedly replied: "Age doesn't matter."
But one girl, who was just 15 when she first met Khubaib, today (Mon) told how she turned the tables on the married restaurant owner after refusing his indecent proposal. The girl, who cannot be named, said Khubaib offered her £60 if she went to a house with him there and then.
He allegedly told her: ‘You make me happy, I’ll give you money.’ In a recorded interview she said: ‘He thought because he’s got that many girls, I didn’t know whether he thought “I have got them, I can get more”.
‘I was not having any of it. He made me feel sick. It is disgusting how people can think of that.’
Despite her refusal, Khubaib, who owned the former Peterborough restaurant ‘Zaika’, repeated the offer around two weeks later, this time offering £90, it is alleged.
‘He was, like, the offer’s still there,’ the girl said. Khubaib then allegedly said: ‘You know you want to, all the other girls love it.’
Khubaib is standing trial alongside Manase Motaung, 32 for rape and child sex trafficking of girls aged between 12 and 16. Khubaib, of Cambridge Avenue, Peterborough, denies 11 counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, and one count of rape.
Three things account for the kind, and size, of the Muslim menace. The first is the rise of OPEC, and the trillions of dollars -- nearly 30 trillion since 1973 alone -- that have allowed the Muslim Arabs to build up huge arsenals of weapons, and to subvert, through bribery both direct and indirect (including the dangling of possible deals before Western businesmen), to acquire power at the U.N. and such succursales as the Human Rights Commission, and among political and media elites all over the world.. The second is the unprecedented move of large numbers of Muslims, from every Muslim land, to the countries of Western Europe, and to a lesser extent North America, where they have been allowed to settle, and to establish beachheads for the spread of Islam, and to make insistent and aggressive demands for changes in the laws and customs and understandings of the advanced West to accomodate the adherents of Islam.
And the third development has been the appropriation, by Muslims, of the technological advances made in the West, by non-Muslims, developments that make it easier to disseminate the full message of Islam. One example are the audiocassettes that proved so important to Khomeini and his supporters, so that even in his exile in France (he had been booted out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein), at Neauphle-le-chateau, he could have his speeches recorded on audiocassette tapes, then sent to Iran where hundreds of thousands of copies were made and distributed. Videocassettes, satellite television (the satellites are Western, the rockets that send them up are in the West), and above all the Internet, entirely a creature of the West, have been exploited to disseminate Muslim propaganda, including that by Al-Qaeda and by the Islamic State.
Now that Twitter has instituted a policy of preventing threats of murder from being posted, the Islamic State naturally takes offense, believing that this violates its free speech rights, its divine right to exploit, in any way Muslims see fit, what the non-Muslim West has created.
Ten charged in Rochdale child grooming investigation
Greater Manchester Police charge ten men with catalogue of offences as part of Operation Doublet into alleged sexual exploitation of teenage girls by older men. The charges are as follows: Shayfur Rahman, 31, from Prestwich, has been charged with one count of rape; Kutab Miah, 34, from Rochdale, has been charged with three counts of sexual activity and one count of rape; Rehan Ali, 26, from Blackley, Manchester, has been charged with one count of rape, three counts of sexual activity with a child when the offender was over 18 and three counts of sexual activity with a child when the offender was between 15 and 17. Iklaq Choudhry Hussain, 37, from Rochdale, has been charged with three counts of sexual activity with a child and two counts of rape. David Law, 45, from Ilkeston, Derbyshire has been charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit rape. Mahfus Rahman, 28, of HMP Garth, has been charged with three counts of rape and three counts of sexual activity with a child. Ashfaq Yousaf, 28, of HMP Forest Bank has been charged with one count of aiding and abetting rape against one victim. He has also been charged with one count of rape against a further victim. Afraz Ahmed, 32, from Rochdale has been charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit rape and one count of rape against one victim. He also faces two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, relating to offences against to girls. He has also been charged with one count of rape against a further victim. Mohammed Davood, 37, from Burnley, has been charged with one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against one victim. He has also been charged with three counts of rape, one count of sexual activity with a child and one count of sexual assault against a further victim. Mohammed Miah, 39, of HMP Moorland has been charged with three counts of sexual activity and one count of rape against one victim. He has also been charged with one count of rape against a further victim.
The men have been bailed to appear at either Bury or Tameside Magistrates' Court later this week.
Fears Mohammed Emwazi's brother may have been radicalised
Mohammed Emwazi's younger brother voiced support for the radical Islamic cleric who inspired one of Lee Rigby’s killers, the Telegraph can disclose. Omar Emwazi, 21, indicated that he admired Sheikh Khalid Yasin on his Facebook profile, which was deleted shortly after his brother was identified as "Jihadi John".
Yasin is an notorious American preacher who converted from Christianity to Islam and is believed to live in Manchester. He was named by Woolwich terrorist Michael Adebowale as his inspiration for converting to Islam. Adebowale, 22, said thatlectures posted online by Yasin taught him the purpose of life.
Emwazi has "liked" Yasin on Facebook, as well as Imran ibn Mansur, a preacher who who has likened being gay to having a "disease". Mansur, 24, is a former rapper who calls himself Dawah Manand has reportedly blamed "filthy Western culture" for impulses which should be "surpressed" and claimed that homosexuality comes "under the category of 'obscene, filthy, shameless'."
He is an integral member of a network called Power of Dawah, an evangelical Islamic group that tries to convert people in the street. The group has hosted lectures by various preachers, which are filmed and put online.
Its Twitter account follows Abdur Raheem Green, a controversial preacher who has justified domestic abuse and has suggested that the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks could have been carried out by western governments.
Emwazi registered the PowerofDawah.com website. When his brother was unmasked last week, Emwazi immediately renamed his Facebook profile Omar Omar in a bid to avoid detection. He later deleted it entirely, wiping all evidence of his activity on the social networking site.
A friend of Emwazi’s said she believed many pupils were being groomed by radicals whilst they were still at school . . .
She said the "Muslim Mafia" were not popular among their peers as they were considered too judgmental. “They had a very specific set of values,” she added. "Quintin Kynaston was full of that. It was 70 per cent or 80 per cent Muslim. There was only one white kid in our class. In every year there was a set that was the Muslim Mafia that hung out together and were very religious.
"So many of them are second generation immigrants whose parents are still very much in touch with their culture. I think there was a system of grooming at Quintin Kynaston because there have been a few of them.
"They petitioned to have a prayer room so they could pray five times a day and they always went to Regent's Park mosque every single Friday. I think that's where it happened. A lot of them suddenly got very religious. Pupils went there from various schools in the area. A group two years above me (from another school) went away and joined some kind of training camp and now four or five of them are dead. I think they would just get groomed."
CNN Keeps Up With The Sentimental And Pleasing Lie About That Synagogue In Norway
Look at the photograph that heads an article that attempts to "put into perspective" well-justified alarm about antisemitic attacks and attitudes in Europe, which rise pari passu with the rise in the Muslim population -- it's a false photograph, because it shows a handful of Musliims holding hands, outside that synagogue in Norway, which hand-holding by three dozen or so Muslims (most of them apparently Kurds, many wearing identifiably Kurdish dress -- and the Kurds have their own reasons for seeing a similarity between Israel and Kurdistan) was first reported as "a crowd of about 1,000 Muslims" until the hopeful story, so pleasing to so many who want to believe that Everything Will Be Okay, was exposed as a fabrication. But apparently CNN thinks it can continue to ignore that, and to publish, as it does here, a photograph that continues to mislead, just as it continues to refer to the "1,000 people," "most of them Muslims," who were surrounding that synagogue in Norway. Can't CNN ever admit it was wrong? Can't it at least take a look at the reports by Agence France Presse and others correcting the initial, and false reports, by CNN and others? What gives CNN the right to publish such a misleading photograph more than a week after the initial reports were corrected by others? Will this be looked into by anyone at CNN? Or by any other journalists, trying to discover why stories that either show Muslims as victims of anti-Muslim hostility (that attempt to portray what was clearly a semi--demented man's murderous lapsus in Chapel HIll into a "hate crime") or as noble embodiments of decency, standing up to Protect the Jews (as that Ring of Protection by "1,000 Musliims" in Norway), have a long life, live on long after they have been exposed and exposed again? Surely this is worth study and discussion.
One more example --- there are so many -- of the hideous level of discussion that fills Arab and Muslim airwaves, from the twisted minds of those raised up in societies suffused with Islam, even as the current regime tries to do, within the limits that it deems prudent, to circumscribe the activities of those who are the most passionate, and thus craziest and cruelest, Defenders of the Faith.
Police in the German port city of Bremen arrested two suspected Islamic extremists and detained several others following warnings of an imminent terrorist attack and the discovery of a large cache of Israeli manufactured sub-machine guns in the city.
Scores of heavily armed police patrolled key points including Bremen’s historic town hall and a synagogue over the last two days after federal intelligence reported the port had been targeted for an imminent attack. “We are not sure how long we will have to combat this situation,” a spokesman for the police anti-terrorism unit said. “Danger levels are high and we have cast a security net over the city.”
Police were said to have raided an Islamic cultural centre, a mosque and dozens of homes in the city. Two suspects were arrested and an unspecified number were detained.
Bremen is considered an Islamic extremist stronghold. The city-state’s intelligence service has some 360 militants under surveillance, according to its Interior Ministry.
Update from the German edition of the Local- Police in Bremen said that the risk of a terrorist attack had been reduced in the city after they arrested two suspected arms dealers. The city remains under high alert, with special protection for the Jewish community.
Isn't it funny how many Muslims generally scream for a boycott of Israeli goods but jihadists appreciate the high quality of Israeli made kit and IT?
Systemic failures by police and social services meant victims were subjected to years of sexual torture, rape and trafficking, it is understood.
The victims, mostly girls, come predominantly from Oxford, making it the latest area in Britain to be embroiled in a scandal over the handling of child sex abuse and proving the issue is not confined to inner cities. One senior investigative source told The Guardian: “If you think you haven’t got a problem in your city or town, you are just not looking for it.”
The report comes after seven men were jailed for a string of horrendous child sex crimes against six victims, aged between 11 and 15, over a seven-year period.
...a serious case review by the Oxfordshire safeguarding children board will be published on Tuesday. It is expected to condemn Thames Valley Police and Oxfordshire social services for failing to act. Key findings are will expose how police officers and social workers failed to believe the girls when they detailed the abuse they were suffering, and dismissed their complaints.
The girls and some of their abusers crossed the police and social services radar multiple times. In 2006 alone, the police received four complaints from the young girls about the men, with their accounts corroborated in some cases. One victim reported the abuse twice to police in 2006. She told officers: “They are doing it to other girls, little girls with their school uniforms on.”
There were thousands of contacts between both agencies and the girls and they were reported missing at least 450 times. One victim, known as Girl C, has spoken of how her foster mother reported her missing 80 times.
The report will also put a figure on the extent of the abuse in Oxfordshire, and is understood to have identified 300 young people who have been subjected to grooming and abuse between 1999 and 2014. All have been spoken to by police or social services.
However, it is feared that the figure may be just the tip of the iceberg.
The 'M' word and the 'R' word are not mentioned here (the euphemism 'Asian' to hide these men behind upright Sikhs and Hindus is) - and abuse is not exclusive to the 'M' group, nor neglect exclusive to those to fear the 'R' word - but I believe this will prove to be a factor.
No word is so misused as the word “cowardly.” Terrorist attacks are often said to be cowardly, when in fact the terrorists who carry them out for the worst of ends are sometimes extremely brave. They risk their lives and even intentionally lose them by their acts. At the very least they risk long and condign legal punishment and public opprobrium. I doubt if one person in a thousand can claim to have acted in his life as courageously as most terrorists.
The reason we call terrorists cowardly is that bravery is generally considered a virtue, and we are reluctant to accord people whom we abhor any virtues at all. We want our enemies to be endowed only with detestable qualities, and we are only too aware that courage is the virtue without which other virtues cannot be exercised. If someone were to say “these brave terrorist attacks,” we should suspect him of sympathizing with them.
This is all based on a confusion about the nature of the virtuousness of bravery. Bravery is not a free-standing virtue, as it were, such that anybody who displays it is thereby virtuous. It is like originality in art or architecture: originality is not a virtue unless in the production of something worthwhile sub specie aeternitatis, that is to say judged by a criterion other than originality itself. Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind are not good architects because no one ever built buildings like theirs before. They are good architects, if they are, because their buildings are good, if they are.
Likewise courage is a virtue when it is exhibited in pursuit of a worthy end, or at least one that is not wholly reprehensible. We can admire the courage of an opponent when his aim or goal, though we do not agree with it, is not wholly evil; but we do not admire the courage of German soldiers in the Second World War, though they undoubtedly showed much of it, because what they were fighting for was without any morally redeeming feature. Indeed, courage in pursuit of an evil goal is a vice, not a virtue, without thereby becoming recklessness, which is what Aristotle thought bravery carried to excess should be described as. Terrorists are not reckless: they do not disregard the effects of their attacks but rather want them and calculate to produce them. The attack on the writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo was not worse if carried out by reckless cowards than by brave men.
In describing terrorist attacks, therefore, we should eschew the word “cowardly”—they are not better if they are brave than if they are cowardly. Bravery cannot and does not redeem them.
There is another, slightly more subtle misuse of this word that is common, alas, among British policemen when they speak to the press. A recent case in point was that of a congenitally handicapped 67-year-old called Alan Barnes. Barnes, 4 feet 6 inches high, of strange appearance and with poor eyesight, was mugged outside his home in the North of England. His collar bone was broken in the attack, and not surprisingly he wanted to move away.
Just part of the lamentably long history of man’s inhumanity to man perhaps—but fortunately, not quite. A kind-hearted young local woman, Katie Cutler, was so appalled by the crime that she set up an Internet fund in the hope of raising $750 to assist Barnes. Within four days the fund had collected $420,000. Local lawyers, builders, tradesmen, shopkeepers and others have offered their services free, and Barnes, a strong Christian, has thanked the donors in a movingly dignified way. If there is inhumanity in the world, it is important to remember that there is also humanity.
When a local policemen in charge of elucidating the case spoke to the press, he said:
This was a cowardly assault on a vulnerable man who wasn’t able to defend himself. His disability means that he is partially sighted and quite short, and it’s disgraceful that someone would target him.
And a newspaper with a very large circulation described whoever had done it as the country’s “most cowardly thug.”
Now here, in the literal sense, the world “cowardly” is used correctly. The man who committed this crime knew that his victim was incapable of resistance and that he risked nothing (except being caught) by trying to rob him. But though the word is correctly used in the literal sense, nevertheless its use is morally corrosive, for it gives the impression that it was the cowardice that made this crime so awful.
Robbery is not a competitive sport such as boxing, which pits two roughly equal men against each other, both of whom are courageous if not necessarily wise. A robbery is not any the better for the victim’s being of the same size and strength as the robber, and therefore with a chance of escape or even apprehension of his assailant. But this is precisely the impression that the policeman (and the newspaper) gave by insisting on blaring out its message about the “cowardly thug.”
Of course it is true that the crime appalls us more than many, and we hope that when caught, the perpetrator will punished with the greatest severity; but it appalls us in a special way not because of the cowardice of the perpetrator but because it is an intimation of his deep-seated, heartless villainy. We sense that there is nothing to which he would not stoop for some trifling advantage to himself. If he can perpetrate such a crime, he can do anything. If he is not the, he is at least an incarnation of evil.
One might ask whether word choice matters here. What’s in a word, after all? What is a description of an act compared with an act itself? But I think that this laissez faire approach to language is a mistake, and this has been known for a long time. Confucius long ago pointed to the political dangers of saying what is not meant. If language is the medium of thought, then loose language undermines proper thought. As Pascal put it, let us labor to think well, for such is the beginning of morality.
'Jacqui Lambie receives beheading threat, ordering her to help implement Sharia law in Australia'.
'A letter containing a threat to behead Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie unless she helps implement Sharia law in Australia has sparked a security assessment at the outspoken independent's office.
'The letter was received at the senator's Burnie office last week
For those who don't know, Burnie is a medium-sized (20,000 people) coastal town in Tasmania, Australia's southernmost and island state. Incidentally, a young man who grew up in Burnie, Cameron Baird, joined the Army and was killed in action in Afghanistan, receiving the Victoria Cross posthumously. - CM
and included threats to behead the former Palmer United Party member unless she converted to Islam and helped implement Sharia law by March 18.
'It was accompanied by graphic images of a man being beheaded, which prompted the senator's office to treat the threats seriously.
"By the powers invested in me by Allah I sentence you to death", the letter said. "I will take the honour in beheading you...when you are least prepared; my men and I will take your office by surprise."
Peculiar wording. A western convert to Islam, perhaps? Anyway, I doubt any jihadi wannabe ghazi raider/ assassin will take this lady by surprise. She's a former soldier and has a lot of contacts in the local RSL (Returned Servicemen's League). - CM
'Senator Lambie has been a vocal critic of Islamic sharia law (as all decent people ought to be - CM) but she said the death-threats would not deter her.
Hear, hear! Dear Senator Lambie: please contact Dutch politician Geert Wilders and have a nice long heart-to-heart with him. He knows the territory that you are now entering; the dark, dangerous world inhabited by those who, within the West, and among its politicians, have dared to publicly oppose and critique any aspect of Islam. - CM
"I have no doubt that it is my stance against Sharia Law and my questions on Halal that are going on at the moment", she said.
"The bottom line is that we are at war with ISIS and we are just going to have to be extremely cautious."
Yes. Keep going, keep hammering at this issue, dear Senator; but take advice from the AFP and ASIO, and ...watch your back. There is now in Australia - though fortunately still in very small numbers in your home state, Tasmania - a dangerous Fifth Column, out of which the assassins - the Sharia Enforcers - are beginning to rise in ever greater numbers. Brush off your own military training and never, never drop your guard. Fortunately, however, so far as I can discover, there are few or no identifiable Muslims in Burnie itself. When you are in town, the locals had better be on the lookout for any suspicious outsiders. - CM
'She said the matter had been handed over to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Tasmania Police.
"I'm ex-Army, so I guess that I'm always very conscious about what's going on around me and what's happening in my environment, so I'll just continue to be on that sort of high alert and just lift that a little bit more", she said.
Yes, Senator Lambie. Indeed, you are now on the front-line; a front-line of resistance against Islamisation, resistance against the Global Jihad. The ex-army independent Senator from the smallest state in Australia. - CM
'The staff member that received that letter has been offered some counselling.
"At this stage she hasn't taken up that offer, but that offer will always be open."
A few RSL members, veteran soldiers with experience in the badlands of the Dar al Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan, lounging around the office in a friendly sort of way, suitably equipped, would probably do more for staff morale than mere "counselling". - CM
'The senator said she would continue to go about her business as a senator undeterred.
Excellent. - CM
"I will continue to advocate for a ban on Sharia Law, [and on] unnecessary face-coverings in public, and tighter regulation of Halal certification fees in Australia - and to have those Australian citizens who assist Islamic State in any way, charged with the high crimes of Sedition or Treason."
A good start. Work toward those goals - you will find that quite a lot of Australians are on board with those - but start thinking about advocating a ban on all further Muslim entry into Australia, too. - CM
'A personal security assessment is being done to ensure the safety of Senator Lambie following the letter, the spokesman said.
'The letter specifically mentioned a controversial proposal to build a mosque at Green Fields in Adelaide's northern suburbs.
This is curious. Adelaide is in South Australia, not in Tasmania. Of course, Islamisation is a threat to all of Australia, so all sensible Australian Infidels need to be aware of what is happening around the country. - CM
'Senator Lambie said the threat to her life would not help the proponents of the mosque.
"If they think that's [the] way of going around to get a mosque in Adelaide, by threatening my life, then I tell you what, they're certainly going in the wrong direction", she said.
'The senator conceded the death threat could be a hoax, but she said she was taking it very seriously.
"This is what we're waiting for AFP to determine, and I can't do anything else apart from get on with my daily life, until that's been determined." she said.
The ABC permitted Comments on this article. Don't click on the link and read them, unless you want to be infuriated or disheartened; the majority of those who comment on Islam-related articles at our Aussie ABC's online outlet are Islamophiles whether as Muslims or fully-conditioned dhimmis or because they are nice people who haven't a clue what Islam and jihad are actually all about and haven't yet exerted themselves to find out. Intelligent, fully Islamo-informed and Islamocritical comments - though they do appear - are rare. - CM
How the American Heartland Perceives the Iranian Threat and Israel
What do the American people think about Iran's nuclear program and terror enterprise? Why do recent US polls show that Americans want PM Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before the US Congress? What does the American heartland think of Israel's tough policy against the intensifying Iranian terror threat? VOI's Dan Diker hears the answers to these questions from an expert panel: Washington, DC-based national-security expert Shoshana Bryen Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center, former US Army Intelligence officer Jerry Gordon;, Senior Editor of the New English Review and US talk-radio personality Mike Bates.of 1330amWEBY, Pensacola, Florida.
Why should not a True Believer delight in the destruction of artifacts from the time of Jahiliyya? They merely confuse Muslims, distract them, turn them away from the austere faith, that does not want shrines, or pictures, or statues, or practically anything, but the zebibah as a sign of five-times-a-day submission.
Justice for the Wultz Family and Other American Victims of Terrorism
Republished with permission of Dr. Rich Swier eMagazine
You may have read Roger Cohen’s op-ed in the Sunday New York Times, “Did Israel put Money over Justice?” Cohen recounts the dilemma facing Yekutiel “Tuly” and Sharon Wultz in Florida. They were confronted with the Israeli government denial of a deposition by a former Shin Bet agent in a New York federal court case. The case involves the laundering of Iranian funds through the Bank of China (BOC) to pay for the attack that mortally wounded their teen age son, Danny in Tel Aviv in April 2006. That testimony would be key to implementing a federal court determination of liability of the BOC in the attack that resulted in the death of Danny Wultz.
Cohen seeks to blame the impasse on Israeli PM Netanyahu, because the release of the former Shin Bet agent to provide testimony, previously approved by the Israeli government, was reversed in 2013. Allegedly that was down so as not to jeopardize a burgeoning economic relationship between Israel and the People Republic of China. Cohen does not address whether the reversal by the Israeli government might have been attributable to Israel security echelon concerns that such testimony might reveal valued agents and networks monitoring Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists backed by Iran. The BOC wants to avoid the precedent in the Jordanian-based Arab Bank case decision involving 300 victims of the terrorist group, Hamas. That decision in September 2014 held a financial institution liable involving illicit banking relations with terrorist groups and financiers.
Daniel Wultz comes home to America.
Tuly Wultz is the father of the late Danny, who was mortally wounded by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) suicide bomber at a Tel Aviv Shawarma stand in April 2006. The United West sponsored a presentation in March 2010 that heard from two fathers of terrorism victims. Tuly Wultz, a former IDF special operations officer, and David Beamer, father of Todd, one of 9/11 passengers on Flight 93, discussed the emotional loss of their sons to terrorism. In Tuly’s case he tried to shield Danny from the blast, causing significant injuries to himself as well. Tom Trento of the United West let me preview a video interview with both Tuly and Sharon (Cantor) Wultz at their home in Florida in 2008. They had established a foundation in Danny’s name to inform people about Islamic terrorism that took the life of their son who succumbed to his injuries after a 27 day ordeal. We chronicled the course of their federal case, Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 979 F. Supp. 2d 479 – 2013 brought by the Wultz family against the Bank of China (BOC). The case was brought to hold the BOC liable for laundering Iranian funds for the PIJ. Those funds were used to pay for the attack and also provided compensation to the Palestinian terrorist’s family for the loss of their son, whom they venerated as a Shahid, martyr, for his heinous act. The Israeli government held back testimony by a former Shin Bet agent, who could have provided testimony in a deposition in connection with the federal court award in excess of $330 million as compensation. See: Florida family’s Anti-Terrorism case: Israeli intelligence expert barred from testifying in U.S. – Watchdog Wire – Florida.
Cohen uses the plight of the Wultzs as a thinly veiled attack on Israel PM Netanyahu. He tried to make the connection between the latter’s opening to China for economic reasons allegedly blocking ‘justice’ in the Wultz case. Based on the BOC counsel replies in the Wultz case, and given the Arab Bank case decision, the evidence from the former Shin Bet agent could be material. Unfortunately, we find this NYT Op Ed column by Cohen to be exploitative of the Wultz’s predicament. We also want to see justice done. But not at the expense of partisan politics conveyed by Cohen and comments from Democrat National Committee head, Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz. It is not lost on us that this NYT op ed was published, the weekend prior to PM Netanyahu’s looming speech before a Joint Session of Congress on March 3rd. That is the day before the Jewish festival of Purim, laden with ancient Persian existential threats to Jews. What to do about it?
We would suggest the following approach might be considered to achieve justice in the Wultz matter. The proposal would be to obtain a ruling that would enable the former Shin Bet agent to be deposed to produce an evidential record, subject to court release. It would also address the equitable division of liability between the BOC and the Islamic Republic of Iran to fund the award. The extent of the BOC liability would reflect the precedent of the Arab Bank decision currently under appeal before the US Second Circuit Court in Manhattan. Further, the proposed ruling might impound the equitable amount of an adjudicated economic payment to the Wultz’s from Iranian assets retained by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of The Treasury under US sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program.
That possible solution might have a derivative benefit. It could also set a precedent for the Havlish, et. al. matter, as well. We might possibly see amicus filings by the counsel in the Havlish matter. The Wultz family has retained as counsel, nationally prominent litigation firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Counsel for the Wultzs could make the proposed filings before federal Judge Shira Scheindlin in the Manhattan Federal Southern District Court along with a supporting affidavit from the legal representatives of the State of Israel enabling the former Shin Bet agent to be deposed. That evidentiary record could be sealed by court order and released upon petition at a later date. Only the Wultz counsel and the legal representatives of the State of Israel are best able to see whether this proposal has merit to render justice in this languishing case. If feasible, it might set a precedent for the Havlish, et.al. and other matters brought in US courts under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990.
Tuly Wultz speech at AIPAC.
What is troubling about these cases brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 is the lack of proactive efforts by the Justice and Treasury Departments. It is unseemly that victims like the Wultzs, the 9/11 families, the American victims of the Second Intifada and Hamas are not supported in their pursuit of justice. Dr. Rich Swier, publisher of the eponymous e-magazine, who has also met Tuly Wultz said:
The Wultz family deserves justice and closure. The U.S. government must act to protect its citizens from attack, but once that attack takes place, everything must be done to bring the terrorists to justice and provide recompense to the family. While Tully’s son Daniel cannot be replaced, this case can add enormously to the non-profit established in Daniel’s name to help others. Justice cannot be served until Iran is punished, monetarily, for its crime against the Wultzs and so many others.
Did President Obama Invoke the Brzezinski Doctrine to Shoot Down IAF Planes Attacking Iran?
Last night, I glanced at a report from a Kuwaiti news paper and thought it looked suspiciously familiar. The Kuwaiti publication Al-Jarida published a report that a senior Israeli minister with alleged close ties to the Obama Administration had tipped off Secretary of State Kerry about a possible IAF attack against selected Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel National News (INN) reported:
US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
Following Obama's threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.
According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel's back.
Al-Jarida quoted "well-placed" sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.
According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.”
The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.
If this sounds like déjà vu all over again, as baseball great Yogi Berra might opine, it should. Back in 2008, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Carter National Security Advisor, was a foreign policy consultant to then Senator Obama in the midst of his first Presidential campaign. He became a center of controversy when he publicly favored the shoot down of IAF aircraft transiting Middle East airspace in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, in a September 21, 2009, INN report wrote:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, has called on the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast. Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland.
“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.’" Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.
But like a bad penny, the Brzezinski doctrine popped up in an exchange in 2010 between Admiral Mike Mullins, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an Air Force ROTC cadet at the University of West Virginia. Gil Ronen of INN in an April 21, 2010 report noted:
The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, evaded a question Tuesday regarding the theoretical possibility that the US would shoot down IAF jets en route to attack Iran.
The Weekly Standard reported that in a town hall meeting on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a US Air Force ROTC cadet asked Mullen to respond to a hypothetical situation: if Israel decided to attack Iran, he said, its jets would need to fly through Iraqi airspace, which is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. Would US troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airman asked, if they entered that zone?
Mullen evaded the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel,” he said. “I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”
The cadet insisted: “Would an airman like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli aircraft or personnel?”
Mullen still would not answer directly. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here,” he said. “They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future.”
Mullen, appearing in a forum at Columbia University on Sunday, equated the danger of a nuclear Iran with the danger of an attack on it. ""I worry . . . about striking Iran. I've been very public about that because of the unintended consequences. I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome," He did not mention the added danger to Israel of a nuclear Iran that has vowed publicly to destroy the Jewish State.
Israel may be prepared to counter an Iranian S-300 threat. We commented in a 2010, Iconoclast Post:
In June 2008, Israel’s air force undertook massive air training exercises involving more than 100 aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean against Greek S-300 Russian air defense systems. That effort demonstrated the canny effectiveness of swarming attacks against the S-300 and later versions that upset the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guards.
That did not go unnoticed by the IRGC Air Force commanders. They had put in orders for an advanced version of the S-300 system to counter a possible Israeli air attack threat. However, Russia was prevailed upon by Israel and the US not to deliver those air defense systems. Just after the January 18, 2015 Golan attack that took out senior Hezbollah and Iranian Al Quds commanders, there was a meeting in Tehran on January 20, 2015 between, Russian Defense Minister Shogui and Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Dehghan. We noted in a January 21, 2015 Iconoclast post:
TAAS reported the US studying the announced Russian –Iranian military agreement, but specifically objecting to possible shipment of the S-300/400 air defense system. Russia might finally ship Iran the advanced S-300 air defense system that both the US and Israeli successfully lobbied former Russian President Medvedev in 2010 to cancel. Immediate payment by Iran of $800 million for the S-300 system may have cemented the deal. This defense cooperation deal is a prelude to a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in a Central Asian republic location.
The Russian delivery of the S-300/400 air defense system to Iran maybe a possible counter to the IAF December 8, 2014 attacks at Damascus International airport hangars that destroyed deliveries of missiles headed for Hezbollah in Lebanon and allegedly killed two senior terrorist proxy operatives.
While the threat of the Brzezinski doctrine allegedly may have been invoked by President Obama to foil an alleged IAF attack in 2014 against Iranian nuclear facilities, the Israelis are prepared in that eventuality to spring some surprises that neither the US nor Iran had planned to counter. These reports reinforce the widening divide that has erupted between the Obama Administration and the Israeli Netanyahu government, the latter facing a general Knesset election on March 17th. PM Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington this evening demonstrates his determination to inform the American body polity of the clear and present dangers of Iran’s closure on becoming a nuclear threshold state as witnessed by the leaks of a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding revealed in our February 27, 2015 post.