Saturday, 28 October 2017
MP shocked that 'anti-Muslim extremist' was invited to parliament
clear

From Asian Image

A Labour MP has called it "incredible" that a Tory backbencher would host an event in Parliament attended by an "anti-Muslim extremist". Naz Shah said that Tapan Ghosh held "abhorrent views" about Muslims, saying Parliament should not be "a platform to propagate and legitimise hate and extremist views".

Ms Shah said: "According to many of today's news outlets, (Mr Blackman) hosted anti-Muslim extremist Tapan Ghosh in committee room 12 last Wednesday.

"Mr Ghosh holds abhorrent views, is on record for calling upon the United Nations to control the birth rate of Muslims, praising the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Burma and also said Muslims should be forced to leave their religion if they come to a western country. Only this Monday Mr Ghosh was pictured with UK far-right extremist leader Tommy Robinson. "(he's not far-right - just not far wrong)

Tory MP Bob Blackman said he did not accept Mr Ghosh's views, but said it was right that MPs "have the opportunity to hear evidence from people of what is happening in other countries".

"I hosted, in my capacity as chairman of the all party parliamentary group for British Hindus, two functions last Wednesday, at which Tapan Ghosh attended. One was the annual Diwali celebration on the House of Commons terrace, where a number of honourable and right honourable members attended. Subsequently, in the evening, we had the launch by the National Council of Hindu Temples of a report into Hindu minority rights in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

"Tapan Ghosh was invited by the National Council of Hindu Temples to attend that meeting and present evidence of physical attacks, rapes and false marriages and false conversions that have taken place in west Bengal and other places.

"He made no abhorrent remarks at the meeting, and I am quite clear that both myself and the National Council of Hindu Temples do not agree with his views that have previously stated, do not accept them, we do not endorse them in any shape or form. But I do think it's right that this House has the opportunity and members have the opportunity to hear evidence from people of what is happening in other countries."

Responding to Ms Shah's point of order, Mr Hoyle (Commons Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle) said it was open to MPs to see who they wished.

Regualr readers will recall Mrs Shah who is Labour MP for the Islamic republic of Bradford. She was eventually reinstated back into the Labour party after her suspension for racist and anti-semitic remarks.  Jeremy Corbyn has so far always forgiven Labour activists called out for anti-semitism. 

And once reinstated she did this, report from the Metro. 

Naz Shah, who represents Bradford West, shared and liked a post tweeted out from a parody account of newspaper columnist Owen Jones. She didn't realise it was a parody apparently. That actually makes it worse that she thought it was genuine. 

It said: Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.’

The 43-year-old later deleted her retweet and unliked the post.

Ms Shah’s comments come just days after she attacked fellow Labour MP Sarah Champion for speaking out about the Rotherham sex scandal in article. In the letter, published in The Sun, Ms Shah accused Ms Champion’s comments of being ‘blanket, racialised loaded statements’ which stigmatised the Pakistani community. She added that the article was ‘irresponsible’ and set a ‘dangerous precedent’.

A spokeswoman for Naz Shah told the paper: ‘This was a genuine accident eight days ago that was rectified within minutes. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense.’

Naz Shah points to her own experience of being the 15 year old bride of an arranged marriage imposed upon her in Pakistan where she was living with relatives because her mother was in prison in England for murdering her abusive stepfather as an example of how caring etc she is. And her childhood does sound very traumatic. But her default position is still, always, to protect Islam and Islamic customs and institutions, including attack the Jews, automatically and instinctively. She immediately agreed that English girls should shut their mouths and clicked 'like'. Then she thought again. But it was too late, she had been spotted. She is not a woman I can find myself admiring.

clear
Posted on 10/28/2017 5:15 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Saturday, 28 October 2017
And where were the children's parents?
clear

asks one of our readers to this post of mine about the latest trial of Muslim gang rapists of young English girls. 

I intended to reply as a comment, but I'll make it a post, as it's a bit lengthy. 

Where were the parents?

This is the story of one girl, whose parents tried to do their best for her.

Her parents, who quickly found out about him (the first abuser), were horrified and told the police – who weren’t interested.
Before long, he had started alienating Woodhouse from her family – for example, by saying her father only disapproved because he was racist …
Her family, meanwhile, were getting desperate. When she was missing, which was often, her father would go out with her picture, taking it around hotels and B&Bs, trying to find her.

Her family applied to social services to have her taken into care, thinking she would be safer if she was looked after by the authorities. They were mistaken. If anything it was easier for him.

… Someone also set fire to the flat she later lived in, and she says he had people watching her all the time. Her family were terrorised – her parents had to move, and so did her grandmother.

This newspaper report is from last year

“… I wouldn't advise people to go to the police because they don't do anything. I'd rather take it into my own hands." 

In shocking testimony the father of one girl who was raped by the criminal gangs told how packs of young Kashmiri men linked to her abuser still turn up outside his home to intimidate the family.
"Every night for 13 nights out of 14 between midnight and 1am we had people coming and knocking on the door saying it was takeaways. We don't really eat takeaways, and when we looked through the spy hole they had no food and you could see a car full of Asians.
"We had my granddaughter for the day nine weeks ago and we took the dog for a walk. On the way back I noticed two BMWs full of Asians.
“We were going past and we heard them saying something, but we just ignored it. We got across the road and all of a sudden we started hearing this abuse 'you white bastards, don't think your daughter is safe', things of that nature.

"There was no one else in the street so it was obviously aimed at us. The next moment this big Pakistani guy with a shaven head - he was wearing some sort of robes - put his arm out of the car window and he was waving a tin of lighter fuel shouting 'we will see, we will see'.”

Lawyer David Greenwood from Switalskis solicitors, who has represented dozens of girls abused by Rotherham’s grooming gangs… “I strongly feel this is happening today in many towns across the country. You’ll be able to find parents who are complaining to the police and not being taken seriously, and who are suffering the frustrations that the parents were suffering in Rotherham 15 years ago.”

And just follow the link and read the whole story not just my short highlights to this report

Rotherham dads were arrested after tracking down abusers

Prof Jay’s inquiry said police often treated victims with ‘contempt’, frequently arresting them while taking no action against those committing offences. Her report said: “In two of the cases, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene."

This is just a quick search of the many news stories. Plenty of the girls had decent parents – that so many of them had the courage to come forward and give evidence eventually after being so abused and traumatised  is tribute to their parents continuing love. 

And for the girls who didn't have decent parents, two wrongs don't make a right. 

clear
Posted on 10/28/2017 4:35 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Friday, 27 October 2017
Ottawa has made a mess of Indigenous policy
clear

As last week’s fiasco showed, Ottawa has done a lot to make negotiations with Canada's Indigenous people practically impossible

by Conrad Black


First Nations people wait for the Walk for Reconciliation to begin in Vancouver, B.C., on Sunday September 24, 2017.

Last week’s walkout by native leaders from extensive discussions with Ottawa about new rules for the assessment of natural resources and pipeline projects perfectly illustrated the vapidity of the present federal government’s policy of pretending that it meets on an equal footing with these native organizations on a “nation to nation” basis. This is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised the United Nations last month as he converted the annual general assembly meeting of that rag-tag of largely irresponsible and uncivilized countries into a confessional where Trudeau not only conceded that this country has pursued a colonial relationship with our native people for over a century (which is untrue), but also pledged to that raddled gallery, including an inordinate number of hypocrites and scoundrels, that Canada would pursue a policy based altogether on false premises.

I suspect, but I am not a mind-reader and don’t know, that the political strategists of the government think that Canada has an endless capacity for guilt and shame over the conditions of the native people. There is no doubt that most Canadians are concerned and distressed at the poor circumstances that afflict a great many native people, but their capacity to hold themselves responsible for it has been significantly mitigated by the scores of billions of dollars that have been directed at these problems without, apparently, making much progress to help the native people better their lot. All Canadians, and not just the natives, are frustrated and disappointed by this and are anxious to do better. 

Government policy is based on the concept that the native groups are sovereign in their spheres

Government policy is based on the concept that the native groups are sovereign in their spheres, in an identical jurisdictional condition to the Canadian government; that the natives have been shamefully mistreated from the moment of the first European settlements right to the present time, more than 400 years. There is implicitly a cloud or question over our moral right to be here at all. Centuries of Anglo-French and Canadian official policy toward the natives were, it is implied, culturally, if not physically, genocidally motivated; and the only answer to the material and sociological problems of the natives and the moral and psychological problems of guilt and shame that the Liberal party has generated and imputes to the entire population of Canada is to allow the native spokespeople to push endlessly on an open door, demanding more money and more jurisdiction from the country and from a position of righteous superiority.

Every individual and all recognized organizations have rights in Canada. There is only one sovereign government in this country and it does not have to negotiate on a basis of entire equality with lesser jurisdictions in matters of inter-provincial and inter-regional interest, a field that certainly includes natural resources and pipelines and other sophisticated means of surface transport. This government has conferred on the native people the unfettered right to pose as the principal defenders of the environment and to claim that practically any modification of the virgin state of the land Leif Ericson and Jacques Cartier discovered (more than 500 years apart) constitutes a desecration of the environment that can only be palliated and expiated by herniating payments of taxpayers’ money to the natives. This makes negotiations practically impossible, as last week’s fiasco demonstrated. The native people are not the only conscientious guardians of the environment and the federal government is the only entity whose right and purpose is to advance the national interest in all respects, balancing questions of environment, prosperity, justice and national security.

This government has conferred on the native people the unfettered right to pose as the principal defenders of the environment

The implicit admission on behalf of Canada that the natives were victims of some sort of attempt at quasi-genocide, and their elevation to the status of chief protectors of original and natural Canada, and the entrenchment of their right to comprehensive negotiation about anything they claim affects their lives as natives, has placed the whole country in the absurd position of being held to blackmail by this nebulous community. I have commented before on the Ktunaxa affair, which the Supreme Court has been deliberating on for 11 months. In it, natives claim that 25 years was insufficient time to consult fully on the proposed development of a ski area on part of a mountain that natives assert would banish the spirit of the grizzly bear, the basis of the religion of a band of 900 people, according to a divine revelation made to a deceased elder who did not mention this apparition for years. I respect religion and imaginative improvisation, but the combination of the two in this case has reduced this country to a laughing stock.

Every sensible and decent Canadian wishes to help the natives and assist them in being happier and more prosperous. But Canada has never had genocidal ambitions toward them or anyone else, including the preposterous concept of cultural genocide. And by a policy of exaggerating their authority, vesting the natives with the right to extort treasure, retard reasonable development and tar the 95 per cent majority of Canadians of other descent as trespassers, interlopers, and usurpers, we have created a monster that will demand more and more until we either return to other continents that our ancestors departed, submit meekly to native dominance (colonialism reversed, consistent with Justin Trudeau’s parlance at the United Nations), or come to our senses and devise a policy that is fair, but not based on unjustified moral self-flagellation, national self-impoverishment and incitement to profligate autocracy in the native communities.

What is needed is a federal government course correction

The more intelligent native leaders (and there are many of them) know that this nonsense has to end, and a number of prominent figures in the native organizations declined to sign the letter to Trudeau withdrawing from the talks. What is needed is a federal government course correction that asserts that Canada is legitimate and sovereign, and recognizes that many past treaties with natives could be fairly seen as uneven and in need of updating at least to reflect monetary inflation. But native organizations must have standards of leadership accountability consistent with the rest of the country, and all those who would rather abandon lonely and desolate habitats that have no possibility of being economically and socially sustaining should be enabled and assisted to do so and relocate. The United States treated the natives harshly, frequently engaged in wars with them, and never really conferred any special status on them. Today, they are all Americans, and some tribes are very prosperous because of oil and other resources on their lands. As the United States was never afflicted with the well-intentioned or guilt-riddled nostalgia that we were, their native policies and communities have latterly been much more successful than ours.

We should humanely scrap unviable communities, ensure that all native people have adequate basic services, provide generous means to ease them into a new life or help them live traditionally in sustainable conditions, and have a system of eminent domain, ecological safeguards, and reasonable compensation where the national interest requires a highway or pipeline or other imposition on nature. Everyone has an equal interest in the environment, and no one group should be able to exercise such an interest as a weapon of mass destruction or hobbling of the public interest. What the country needs, we must have.

Members of the League of Nations were amused between the World Wars by the annual “Canada speech” in which our delegate celebrated Canadian virtue and its distance from any world trouble spot. Those soporific addresses were rivetingly piercing treatises on contemporary political science compared to Justin Trudeau’s recent national self-humbling over mistreatment of our natives to an assembly many of whose member nationalities would consider the lot of the Canadian natives a foretaste of paradise.    

First published in the National Post.

 

clear
Posted on 10/27/2017 9:02 AM by Conrad Black
clear
Friday, 27 October 2017
Sutton Place Synagogue: The bloody beast is back
clear

The Sutton Place Synagogue is where my son's family prays and studies. But I have been uneasy for a long time.

by Phyllis Chesler

Several days ago, the Sutton Place Synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side was defaced by a swastika. My son and daughter-in-law are members of this congregation. My granddaughters attend Hebrew School there.

The bloody beast is back. I can smell it’s breath. But, for me, that’s been the case for a long time now.

In 2003, perhaps early in 2004, I delivered a lecture at this very shul about the rise in anti-Semitism, a subject that had consumed me since Arafat’s Intifada of 2000. Former rabbi Allen Schranz (z”l) was very supportive and I actually joined the synagogue for a while but could not stay because it was not near where I live. The current rabbi, Rachel Ain, has been very gracious and compassionate toward my children and grand-children.

This is getting more personal. But it always has been.

I published my first book on the subject of anti-Semitism in 2003 and took heat for what I wrote. My own editor quarreled with me about whether anti-Zionism was, indeed, anti-Semitism; I kept assuring him that it was. Many Jews pooh-poohed what I was saying, mocked me as a “Jewish Cassandra,” or as such a new-kid-on-the-block, that I had to trust those “in the business,” who understood more than I did. Perhaps so—but I am not talking about scholars in this area, only about the heads of Jewish organizations who knew how to keep themselves in business and who honestly believed that while Jew-hatred was once terrible, it had since all but disappeared.

Most media did not review this work. This was a first for me. Some reviewers said I had exaggerated the facts or that although I had a point, I had not documented my case carefully enough.

This last critique may have been true. I wrote the book in white heat, almost around the clock, and did not think of myself as any kind of specialist. I was not part of the organized Jewish world. I was not planning to make a career of writing or speaking about this subject. I was merely one more Jew who had taken a stand in history and shared what I knew in my bones.

As my colleague Richard Landes once said at a conference on the subject when he had to quickly end his remarks: “Look, they are coming to shecht (slaughter) us. We have to act.”

As I saw it, while this “new” anti-Semitism was not entirely new, it now had the biggest megaphone it had ever had—via movies, videos, and the internet—and it was not only coming to us from a fundamentalist Islamic world; no, now, left-wing, Western anti-racists, progressives, our intelligentsia, our “best and our brightest,” were  functioning as the advance guard for the storm troopers.

Holding Western progressives responsible for betraying the Jews yet again was a Thought Crime. Naming Islamic Jew-hatred for what it is was another Thought Crime.

In my limited experience, in the United States, such graffiti can be the work of a delinquent teenager, a mentally ill Jew, a brainwashed individual, usually a man or two men—and they can hail from the left or from the right.

Last year, a group of Hindus approached me to write a letter begging for mercy before sentencing on behalf of an 18 year-old Catholic boy and an 18-year old Hindu boy whose parents believed they had been “brainwashed by a cult.” (I never did learn which cult it was, exactly). Together, they had defaced several synagogues and had fire-bombed a rabbi’s home, attached to the synagogue. Luckily, no one was hurt but the worst could have happened. Although some of the Jewish communities involved wanted no leniency, I did write for mercy as requested. These young men had already spent six years in solitary. This is torture enough.

However, in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, India, the Far East, and Africa, when Muslim mobs filled with righteous infidel hatred riot against Jewish or Christian houses of worship, and against any living infidels, mighty conflagrations ensue, the death count mounts.

This is undeniable, is it not? If not, why is this so denied, no underplayed, so accepted as a “given?”

I am uneasy. I have been uneasy since Arab Palestinian terrorists began hijacking planes, bombing synagogues all over Europe, massacring young Israeli athletes. I have been uneasy since Arab Palestinians turned themselves into human bombs to blow up Jews (and the wrong kind of Muslims, and women and children).

Isn’t it time for others to become uneasy too?   

First published in INN.

clear
Posted on 10/27/2017 8:45 AM by Phyllis Chesler
clear
Friday, 27 October 2017
The Politics of Resentment and Debt
clear

by Theodore Dalrymple


France’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon gives a speech in the European Parliament.

Populism—the politics of resentment—is generally regarded as a right-wing phenomenon. Populists supposedly appeal to the lowest prejudices of the unintelligently disgruntled, such as unskilled workers who believe that the immigration of large numbers of people from poorer countries than theirs suppresses their wages or destroys their jobs altogether. Other beliefs ascribed to these workers are an aversion to how immigrants look, speak, smell and behave, and disgust at the food the immigrants eat. This, of course, contrasts very unfavorably with the attitudes of properly enlightened people.

But the negative connotations of the word “populism” ought to be associated with left-wing demagogues as well, though they rarely are. For example, in France, the leader of the Left opposition to President Macron, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, recently spoke to a crowd demonstrating against Macron’s proposed changes to France’s labor laws, and recited the fact (if it was indeed a fact) that France had more millionaires than any other country in Europe.

In the context, this was clearly an appeal to envy and hatred—the kind of envy and hatred that has provoked at least as much mass murder as racial hatred. (The two have often been closely associated, for what anti-Semite ever fails to draw attention to the economic success of Jews?)

The word “millionaire” as M. Mélanchon uttered it was supposed to conjure up within his hearers, by a kind of Pavlovian reflex, an exploitative, parasitic, fat, lazy, cynical, privileged, dishonest, heartless and undeservedly lucky person, possibly still wearing a black tail coat and silk top hat, with a cigar stuck firmly between his fat and sybaritic (or very thin and cruel) lips.

No doubt there are many unpleasant millionaires. (By some definitions, of course, M. Mélenchon is one himself.) There are unpleasant people in all human groups, however classified. Some millionaires will have made their money in a disreputable or extremely ruthless way, or by appeal to the low tastes of part of the general population; many others will have performed valuable services for mankind and have used much of their fortune for philanthropic purposes.

So Mélanchon’s rhetoric was every bit as crude as that of the populists who are deemed to be right-wing (though their economics are usually collectivist). Even so, his name will not come to the forefront of the minds of those who decry populism.

Across the Channel, things are even worse. The opposition Labor Party constantly appeals to those who want something for nothing, and want to believe six impossible things before breakfast. The latest scheme of the party, recently announced, is to cap the interest charged on credit-card debt.

It is true that in Britain interest on credit-card debt is eye-wateringly high, considering the rate of inflation and compared with other kinds of borrowing. No doubt part of the reason is that many cardholders now have so little sense of personal honor in paying their contracted debts that those who extend credit must seek compensation elsewhere. There has in my lifetime been a 180-degree change in popular attitudes to indebtedness. Credit, moreover, is often extended by banks and others to people who are not creditworthy and whose desire to spend is greater than their ability to earn.

One could not accuse lenders of hiding the conditions of their loans. In contrast to many contracts, the ones signed by credit-card customers state the conditions quite clearly, in particular with regard to the rates of interest that lenders are charging. They have at least the courage of their interest rates.

All the same, two arguments might be used to exculpate those who find themselves in what the Labor politicians call the debt trap. The first and better is that the people in the debt trap have so little money that they must resort to credit in order to keep body and soul together. The second and worse is that people are so ill-educated in modern Britain that they do not realize that compound interest at, say, 20 per cent a year soon exacerbates a debt.

No one could deny that being at the lower end of the economic spectrum in a modern society is discomfiting and even humiliating, especially if it is a permanent condition (which often it is not). But personal incompetence in managing finances, and a distorted sense of priorities and entitlements, combined with an intuition that, in the last resort, debts can be contracted with impunity—an intuition which the proposal to cap debt can only reinforce—must in modern circumstances explain much of the high rate of indebtedness. There is not much popularity to be gained, and few votes to be won, by pointing this out, though. Better to point the finger at the evil usurers.

As to the notion that people are too ill-educated to understand the natural consequences of high rates of compound interest, this does little honor to a state education system that spends at least $100,000 on each pupil during his compulsory schooling. The same goes for our representative democracy in general, for if people cannot understand that high rates of compound interest rapidly increase the amount owed, surely it is absurd for them to have a say in deciding who should govern them?

If there is any lack of understanding, I believe that it is an induced, or artificial, one in a situation where there is little motive to understand and every motive to misunderstand. Such people as indebt themselves on credit cards apply their intelligence (which is not lacking) in other ways and to other matters. Indeed, to indebt yourself when you know that, ultimately, you face no very severe consequence for doing so, other than intermittent anxiety, could be interpreted itself as a form of intelligence or rational calculation.

Everyone would like to have his debts cancelled at a stroke, and it is not in human nature to love one’s creditors. The proposal to cap credit-card debt is therefore likely to appeal to those who will profit by it, though it can lead only to further degeneration of their own character. What it will not do is attract any derogatory epithet such as “populist.” For some reason, left-wing hatred of usurers is never that.

First published in the Library of Law and Liberty.

clear
Posted on 10/27/2017 5:52 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
clear
Friday, 27 October 2017
The Heroic Tamer El-Noury, and the Limits of Filiopietism
clear

by Hugh Fitzgerald

On October 22, CBS’s Sixty Minutes devoted one of its segments to the stirring tale of Tamer El-Noury.

That is the alias of an Egyptian-American undercover agent, working for the FBI, who has for years been befriending terrorists linked to Al Qaeda, both in the United States and abroad. Heavily made up, with his voice disguised, El-Noury told a television audience of millions about some of the techniques he used for “accidentally bumping into” those suspects he needed to meet and befriend so that ultimately they would come to trust him enough to reveal to him, or even include him as a participant, in their terrorist plans. El-Noury described how he was endowed by the FBI with a “legend,” that is, a fictitious life-history, complete with supporting data and documents, that made him out to be a well-off Arab-American property investor. He reviewed this story endlessly, for it included details of how he got his start, of what investments he had made, of his family life, of how he conducted his (fictional) business. He had to become knowledgeable enough to be able to answer any questions that his new Al Qaeda friends might ask, about his family, life, or work. The FBI set up an “office” for him too, complete with files and a receptionist, in case any of his terrorist associates wanted to check up on his business and came a-calling.

El-Noury memorized his fictional life history, as supplied by the FBI, rehearsed answers to every possible question he might be asked, including what had supposedly caused him to want to harm Americans. That tale involved a made-up story about his mother, who died, El-Noury was told to claim, because — or so he was told to say he believed — she received sub-standard care from American doctors because she was a Muslim. Hence his professed desire to inflict damage on Americans. After the FBI managed to arrange his “chance encounter” on a plane with a Tunisian immigrant from Canada, an Al-Qaeda member named Chiheb Esseghaier, El-Noury befriended the Tunisian and, over many months, won his trust to such an extent that Esseghaier told him of his plans, at the direction of Al-Qaeda operatives abroad, first to attack and derail a New York-to-Toronto passenger train as it crossed a bridge, and after that, to conduct a much more complicated attack, involving a series of bombs going off at set intervals in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. El-Noury’s undercover work led to the arrest and conviction of both Esseghaier and an associate, Raed Jaser, who are now serving life sentences.

There is no doubt that El-Noury engaged in difficult and dangerous work for the FBI. He is still working for the FBI. So it may seem churlish to take issue with what he repeatedly insists about Islam, but being a hero does not mean that your understanding of the faith is not to be challenged.

For El-Noury considers himself a good Muslim. And he hates these Al-Qaeda jihadists because they “desecrate” his religion:

“The fact is that these jihadists – these radicals that are popping up – are lost souls. They latch on to hatred, and an evil that seems to give them purpose.”

“I am a Muslim and I am an American, and I am appalled at what these animals are doing to my country while desecrating my religion.”

One must ask how, in what way, are “these jihadists” to be considered “lost souls”? Are they behaving in a way that is contrary to the commands of the Qur’an to wage violent Jihad? Does El-Noury not know those 109 jihad verses that these “lost souls” rely on? Do Muslims “latch on to hatred” that is not to be found  in the Islamic texts, in order to give their lives “purpose,” or is that hatred for the Infidels to be found all over the Qur’an and hadith, impossible to avoid?

Still more disturbing is El-Noury’s insistence that “these animals” are “desecrating my religion.” How are they desecrating it? Isn’t instilling terror in the hearts of the Unbelievers exactly what Muslims are instructed to do, as in Qur’an 3:151, 8:12, 8:60?

What about the behavior of Muhammad, that “Perfect Man,” who is held up for Muslims as an exemplar, and who said in a famous hadith that “I have been made victorious through terror”? (Al-Bukhari, 4.52.220)

When El-Noury insisted that these terrorist plotters were “desecrating” his religion, he was stating what is for him psychologically necessary. One suspects that for his own mental stability, he has had to convince himself that Islam does not in any way justify terrorism, that the only Muslims he (and we) need worry about are those who are not good Muslims but “lost souls,” people who are not honoring but “desecrating” the inoffensive faith of Islam. He is hardly the only Muslim who chooses to overlook, who doesn’t want to know about, the actual contents of the Qur’an and Hadith. But because he is also someone who has helped in the capture and conviction of would-be terrorists, he has a claim on our sympathies that might lead us, wrongly, not to question his view of Islam.

No doubt his FBI handlers were happy to accept his view of the “true” Islam as benign, for they have no desire to contradict him, given all that he has done and may still be doing, as an undercover agent. Far better to let him believe, if he must, that the true Islam is peaceful, tolerant, inoffensive. And it would have been unseemly, no doubt, for the Sixty Minutes interviewer to take issue with Tamer El- Noury in a segment clearly designed to celebrate him, to contradict him by suggesting that Islam is not being “desecrated” by the terrorists, but that those terrorists are simply taking to heart the many Qur’anic verses commanding violence, and acting on them. Such a line of questioning would only anger Mr. El-Noury, and given how he has risked his life as an undercover agent, the audience is likely to take his side if he is challenged, as he yet again repeats that the terrorists are “lost souls” who “desecrate” Islam.

But his heroism does not mean we need to accept El-Noury’s benign view of Islam. Hero he certainly is, but that has not made him a reliable guide when it comes to what Islam inculcates. There are other venues than Sixty Minutes where he might and should be questioned — including right here, right now, at Jihad Watch.

What does El-Noury make of the following examples — there are so many — of Qur’anic verses about killing the Unbelievers:

“Fight against those who do not obey Allah and do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29

“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them. Capture them. Besiege them. Lie in wait for them in each and every ambush but if they repent, and perform the prayers, and give zakat, then leave their way free.” 9:5

“Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191

“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4

Or those that command acts of terror:

“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.”  3:151

“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” 8:60

Should Mr. El-Noury, as someone who has risked his life to help catch Muslim terrorists at the planning stage, be exempt from cross-questioning about his understanding of Islam? Some might think so. Many will want to believe that he is right about Islam, because the notion that the terrorists are only following the Qur’an and Hadith is simply too disturbing. We hear him say again and again “I am a Muslim and I am an American, and I am appalled at what these animals are doing to my country while desecrating my religion,” and it’s tempting to believe him.

But a different, and a better view, is that when El-Noury  misleads himself, and us, about Islam, we should not let his impressive work as an undercover agent cause us to silently accept his view of Islam. Our duty is to correct his misrepresentation of the faith. Islam is not a hieratic mystery which non-Muslims cannot possibly comprehend. We can read the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira. We can study the Jihad verses, including the verses that call not just for warfare, but for terrorism against the Unbelievers. We can learn about the life of Muhammad and how he treated Unbelievers. We can read the Qur’anic commentators, from the first century  of Islam to the present day.

On Sixty Minutes, El-Noury might have said something other than to express his fury at those he apparently believes are misinterpreting, twisting, distorting, desecrating Islam. He might have said that “Muslim terrorists attacked America that day, on 9/11, and as a Muslim and American I felt a special duty to help prevent any more such attacks.” And he might have stopped there, instead of describing those Al Qaeda terrorists as “desecrating” Islam. Or he might have said, truthfully, that “these terrorists don’t know how else to understand the Qur’an except literally — they not only take the Qur’anic commandments to heart but attempt to act on them,” and thus they “set themselves against those they call Unbelievers, that is the rest of humanity.” He could have said that “I do what I can, about the most dangerous ones, but I can only hope that another understanding of Islam, one that will permit real coexistence between Muslims and all others, will come into being. It means, to begin with, for Muslims not to deny but to recognize what the ideology of Islam now inculcates. It requires us to fight for another interpretation. It won’t be easy to achieve. But we must try.”

And then, even better, Tamer El-Noury could have quoted a handful of verses, say 9:5, 9:29, 2:191, 3:151, 8:60, 47:4, the very ones that Defenders of the Faith most try to hide from Infidels, and said “see, that’s what we are facing, that’s what we must deal with.”

Could he bring himself to say that? If he could, that would be another heroic service rendered by El-Noury. And if he can’t? If he clings to the belief that terrorists “desecrate” the good, peaceful, tolerant faith with which he says he he grew up, and that he has convinced himself is the “real” Islam? Then be grateful for what he has done and continues to do, as an undercover agent, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that his heroism entitles him to a pass on the subject of Islam. Clearly, for now, he can’t allow himself to abandon his filiopietistic misunderstanding of the faith. But we who are not Muslims can’t afford to let palpable untruths about Islam go unchallenged. Not even if they come from a hero like Tamer El Noury.

First published in Jihad Watch.

clear
Posted on 10/27/2017 5:36 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 27 October 2017
Birmingham: Teacher has SIX kids with TWO wives
clear

From the Birmingham Mail

A Birmingham teacher is taking lessons in love – after marrying TWO wives. The primary school employee (so it sounds like he is in the state system, and not a madrassah teacher) has three children with each partner and they all live together under the same roof. The husband spends alternate nights with each wife – but admitted he loved one more than the other.

And he told BBC WM:(I can't find this on-line)  “It’s the nature of a woman to only want one husband, but it’s in the nature of a man that he will want more than one wife.”

The teacher, who would not be named, admitted his first wife was upset when he revealed he wanted a second spouse, and asked “Why? What’s wrong with me?” But he insisted he had done nothing wrong in the eyes of Islam.

“I spend alternate nights, one with each wife, just a room away in the house we share,” he said. “I have three children with each of my wives and the whole house is shared.” Asked if he loved one wife more than the other, the husband replied: “You can love someone more than the other, Islam allows for that.”

He spoke after Birmingham Labour MP Jess Phillips criticised a dating website which helps Muslim men find second wives. Secondwife.com describes itself as a “Muslim polygamy matchmaking service” for “practising Muslims who are seeking marriage and accept polygamy as a lifestyle”.

Bigamy is illegal in UK law but founder, Azad Chaiwala, defended the site , saying it was better than men having affairs or using prostituites.

The website has been criticised by Yardley Ms Phillips, a Labour member of the Commons women and equalities committee. She said the site should be outlawed and treated women as “commodities”. “It should be outlawed for UK use and follow the law in the UK which does not allow this. “Women are not a commodity, they are not domestic slaves. People cannot be collected like ornaments.”

In my youth such an arrangement would be roundly condemed as shockingly immoral; a man keeping a mistress openly (or two mistresses if the first wife was not lawfully wed under British law) would not have been allowed in any position of authority. He certainly wouldn't have been allowed to teach. But that was then, this is now. 

Now the proprietor of the site is filmed saying we (Muslims) do not have to justify anything we do to "people", we are here to please Allah. 

clear
Posted on 10/27/2017 3:25 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Halal meat row as Lancashire council becomes first to ban unstunned meat from all school meals
clear

Lancashire became the first council to ban unstunned halal meat in school dinners.

After a bitter and impassioned debate which ran on for hours on Thursday afternoon, the Conservative-controlled council voted for the ban.

The campaign was fought between council leader Geoff Driver and part of the the local Muslim community.

 In 2012, the council briefly stopped supplying halal meat to local schools over a production issue, but after children boycotted their school dinners, the unstunned meat was reinstated.

In official documents, seen by The Telegraph, the council warned there could be financial implications if it lost school catering contracts due to a boycott, encouraged by the Lancashire Council of Mosques. The council is also fearful of negative local media coverage.

The council leader, Geoff Driver, pushed for the end of non-stunned halal meat in schools. He said: "This is an animal welfare issue, nothing more, nothing less. My concern that animals that are slaughtered without being pre-stunned go through a lot of stress and torment when they're actually dying."

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals advises slaughterhouses stun animals first, to reduce unnecessary suffering. However, the local Muslim community is sceptical about the charity’s guidance.

Abdul Qureshi, acting CEO of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, was advocating children boycott their school lunches if the vote went against him. He told The Telegraph: “[The RSPCA’s guidance] is most of the time based on feelings, it's not scientifically conclusive.”

The RSPCA hit back at his claims. A spokesperson told The Telegraph: “ I utterly, completely refuse to cede that's where our views come from. Ourselves, the British Veterinary Association and the Humane Slaughter Association signed a joint statement saying the only humane way to kill an animal is to stun it..."

Mr Qureshi added that he was upset this was being debated, citing it as a “resolved issue”: “[The vote is] problematic, it was a resolved issue,.."

clear
Posted on 10/26/2017 12:32 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Would-be jihadist fantasised about beheading Katie Hopkins and helped husband prepare for terror attack
clear

A female would-be jihadist said she fantasised about beheading Katie Hopkins and bought her husband a large combat knife to carry out attacks.

Ummariyat Mirza and Madihah Taheer practised carrying out a knife attack at their home in Birmingham.

Police believe the attack was most likely to have taken place in the West Midlands - but could have happened anywhere.

Taheer, 21, was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court in London on Thursday of preparing an act of terrorism. Her husband pleaded guilty to the charge at earlier hearing.

In 2015, before they were married, Taheer sent Mirza a message which read: "Can we get married already ffs. I want u to kill ppl for me. I have a list."

Mirza replied: "The day of nikkah (marriage) I'll kill em all. Give me the list. The only thing that stops me is we are not married. I will defo I'm not joking."

The prosecution said these exchanges showed they were inspired by the so-called Islamic State terror group.

Taheer, 21, mentioned the controversial newspaper columnist after her partner Ummariyat Mirza said he wanted to decapitate the leader of Britain First, Paul Golding. . . Taheer then added: 'Omd I fantasise about Katie Hopkins head. She's the biggest kuthi (bitch) of them all.'

After the conviction, Detective Chief Superintendent Matt Ward, head of West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit, said: "Earlier this year we received information that they were planning to carry out a terrorist act in the UK. We were able to establish that they were in advanced stages of preparation...

"We are confident that, had we not intervened when we did, they would have carried out an attack. He added: "The attack probably would have taken place in Birmingham or the West Midlands - but it could have been anywhere in the UK."

The couple - along with Mirza's sister, Zainab Mirza, who previously admitted sending him terrorist material terror offence - will be sentenced later.

clear
Posted on 10/26/2017 11:46 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Turkish Delight
clear

by Theodore Dalrymple

Waiting for a flight in Istanbul Airport recently, two policemen with a large black muzzled Alsatian dog walked by at a distance of perhaps twenty yards.

‘That dog is useless,’ said a Turk in his mid-twenties sitting next to me. He spoke excellent American-accented English; his baseball cap was pointed backwards as a sign of his liberation. ‘If it had been any good, it would have smelt me from a mile off.’

‘Oh, yes?’ I said, non-committally.

‘Yes,’ he said, ‘I’ve been smoking weed all night. It must be all over my clothes’

He spoke as if he were proud of it, as if it were some kind of achievement.

‘I have to smoke weed because the world is so full of idiots. I’m surrounded by them, especially in this country.’

He assumed that, because I was a westerner, I must sympathise with anyone opposed to Erdogan and his Islamisation of Turkey.

‘If I were you,’ I said, ‘I should be a little more careful with your confidences.’

‘Nah, the world is changing, man.’

‘In which direction?’

He was obviously a clever young man: a little too clever, I thought. He knew everything.

‘You have a British accent,’ he said. ‘You don’t even have to try.’

‘Try what?’

I moved away from him. I found him extremely unpleasant, unlike all the other Turks whom I met. Whether westernisation had coarsened him, or his coarseness attracted him to the worst characteristics of the west, I cannot say.

The crowd in Istanbul Airport is very interesting to observe. On the one hand are the women who are dressed in a strange fashion that I have not noticed anywhere else in the Muslim world: a kind of long and shapeless gabardine sack of the most negative possible allure in the dullest of shades, that of concrete in the rain, that makes women look like a harvest of potatoes. By comparison with this, the burka is attractive and elegant.

On the other hand are the young men and women bearing tattoos. There has been a sudden explosion in their numbers: I noticed an increase in the last year alone since I was last there.

What is happening? It looks as if people are digging themselves into one of two incompatible identities, rather as they seem to be doing in many other countries. I sense that it will end badly (a friend of mine predicted a Mussolinian end for Erdogan): but a bad end is often also a bad beginning.

clear
Posted on 10/26/2017 7:03 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
clear
Thursday, 26 October 2017
The Lasting Benefits of an Independent Kurdistan
clear

by Hugh Fitzgerald

First of all, let’s not forget that astonishing vote on September 25; 93% of the Kurds in Iraq went ahead and voted for independence. It was an opinion poll, not binding. But it meant a great deal. That figure cannot be ignored, not even by the U.N. The Kurds have a moral right to such a state. They are the most numerous people without a country of their own in the world today. They were betrayed once, by the Great Powers, who had promised them an independent Kurdistan in 1920, then cancelled that promise, at Turkey’s behest, in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. In none of the states — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey — where the Kurds live have they been treated decently. Their language, culture, even ethnic identity, are denied in Turkey, where they are “Mountain Turks” who have “forgotten their language.” They have been subjected to Arab supremacism, savagely repressed in Syria, and even more savagely in Iraq, where they were most recently the victims of mass murder, 182,000 being killed by Saddam Hussein, without a syllable of protest — as the writer Kanan Makiya has noted — from Arabs inside or outside Iraq. Saddam emptied Kurdish villages, and in his policy of forced “arabization,” he replaced the murdered Kurds with Arabs. That was fine by the Arabs, and the Kurds were helpless to resist. They have earned the moral right to their own state, on their own lands, the lands where Kurds were mass-murdered by Saddam’s Arab army, to the apparent indifference of both the Sunni and Shi’a Arab civilians.

Second, an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq would encourage nearly 20 million Kurds in Anatolia to renew and widen their fighting against the Turkish military. The Turks had hoped, over the last two decades, to wear the Kurds down, but the spectacle of an independent Kurdistan should revive Kurdish fervor, and unrest among the Anatolian Kurds can cause the Turkish government, that under Erdogan has become ever less secular, and  more anti-Western, no end of trouble. At this point, with many of the Turkish secularists discharged from their jobs, or in jail, or in exile, and with Erdogan becoming ever more outrageous in his charges against America, Europe, Israel, as he flails about, warning darkly of a war between “the cross and the crescent” and accusing the Mossad of being behind — how, exactly? — the Kurdish referendum, he deserves to be permanently tied down in a conflict with the Kurds of Anatolia, who will gladly provide him with his very own Tar Baby. If they can’t win independence outright, they may at least be able to win greater autonomy at the local level, bringing about an end to their mistreatment, and finally, to exact recognition from the Turkish government of a separate Kurdish peoplehood, language, and culture. The Kurds in Turkey would be able to now acquire American arms unavailable before, supplied to them by the Peshmerga in Iraq and Syria, making them a much more potent fighting force than ever before. Erdogan, who clearly enjoys making trouble in and for the West, will instead find himself needing to apply his energies right at home, in the volatile Kurdish villages of Anatolia.

Third, the Kurds in Iran, about eight million of them, are certain to take heart from an independent Kurdistan next door in what had been northern Iraq. In 1946, the Soviet Union set up an “independent” Kurdish state, the now-forgotten Republic of Mahabad, in northwestern Iran, bordering on Turkey to the west and Azerbaijan to the east. It lasted all of one year. Once the Soviets were out, the Iranian government crushed the “Republic,” but its brief existence left a memory of what independence might be. And like Kurds elsewhere, those in Iran have not forgotten what was promised by the Great Powers in 1920. The Kurds in Iran have over many decades staged demonstrations and risen in revolt, their insurrections usually small-scale and easily suppressed, both by the Shah, and even more ruthlessly, by the mullahs of the Islamic Republic. The largest such revolt was in March 1979, but unfortunately the timing was a little late: the Iranians under the implacable Khomeini had just put down the  Baluchi, Arab, and Turkmen revolts, and could now concentrate fully on the Kurds. Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, and the revolt ended, with a flurry of executions. But now the circumstances are very different. Not only is the Iranian military overextended abroad, in four different countries, but if an independent Kurdistan does secede successfully from Iraq, the Kurds in Iran could receive military aid and even battle-hardened Peshmerga volunteers from an independent Kurdistan just across a porous border.

Fourth, the other ethnic minorities in Iran will also be heartened if the Kurds in Iran, inspired by the Kurdish state, begin to act up. Especially worrisome for the Iranian government are the Arabs of Khuzestan, the oil-producing southern province of Iran. The Arabs there last engaged in mass anti-government protests in April 2005, accusing the Iranian government of “anti-Arab racism.” A sporadic insurgency has continued ever since, with shootings and bombings by Sunni Arab terrorists. In 2015, so worried was Tehran about the Arabs of Khuzestan engaging in a tenth-anniversary uprising, that the government made sweeping arrests, of tens of thousands, to head off such a possibility. But the Arabs of Khuzestan in 2016 blew up an entire petrochemical complex and, in later attacks, destroyed a series of pipelines. The fear is palpable in Tehran that the Arabs will destroy oil-production facilities, and not just pipelines. The Iranian government claims there are 1.8 million Arabs in Khuzestan, while the Arabs claim there are five million. Whatever their number, they could now, if the Iranians were busy putting down the Kurds, the Azeris, and the Baluchis, attempt to rise in revolt again, in an area where the Iranians have to observe some restraint lest their weapons inadvertently damage the oil facilities. In a sense, the Arabs hold the oilfields hostage, preventing, for example, a massive air bombing campaign by the Iranian military. Furthermore, if the Saudis did decide to take their fight with the Persians right to Iran, they  could do so most easily by giving military aid to fellow Arabs in Khuzestan. And far from worrying about damage to Iran’s oil facilities, the Saudis would welcome such damage, for it would raise their own oil revenues.

Fifth, there are Baluchis in Iran’s far east, on the border with Pakistan. As non-Persians, and Sunnis to boot, they have been ill-treated by their Shi’a Persian masters. As noted previously, only 2,000 of the 3.3 million college students in Iran are Baluchis, while 55% of those excuted by the Islamic Republic are Baluchis. They Baluchis have engaged in small-scale attacks in Iran. The latest example was this past April, when the Sunni, and mostly Baluchi, militant group Jaish al-Adl killed ten Iranian border guards in Iran’s Baluchistan. The Baluchis in Iran number only 1.5 million, but there are 8.5 million Baluchis just across the border in Pakistan, who have repeatedly risen up to demand greater autonomy and who,with about 60,000 men under arms, could help the Baluchis in Iran. If the Iranian government, already fighting outside the country in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, then finds itself also fighting the Kurds, and the Khuzestanian Arabs, and the Azeris (see below), the Baluchis in Iran might, with help from their well-armed cousins across the border in Pakistan, attempt a larger-scale revolt. Each new insurrection by non-Persians in Iran breathes life into the others; as more non-Persian ethnic groups rise in revolt, the more chance each has of success.

Sixth, the Azeris are the most numerous minority in Iran. There are 18 million of them, while there are only 9 million Azeris in Azerbaijan itself. The Azeris have always been more secular than the Iranians, and while under the Shah’s regime they were generally well integrated, life has been more difficult for them under the Iranian mullahs. And they are quick to sense mistreatment. One incident, in 2006, was caused by a cartoon of a cockroach which was shown pronouncing “What?” with a distinctly Azeri accent. Tens of thousands of Azeris took to the streets, and were violently suppressed, in Tabriz, Urumieh, Ardebil, Maragheh, and Zenjan, in the northwest. These demonstrations took place in a context: that of the Azeri perception that the Persians regard them as dumb beasts of burden, referring to them as “Torki char” (Turkish donkey), meaning that the Azeris are the “brawn” while Persians are the “brains” of Iran. Ever since Khomeini took power, there has been growing Azeri nationalism. The resentment over economic conditions in the Azeri northwest, and Persian supremacism has fed this nationalism.  It is worth noting that the Azeris in Iran claim to constitute 40% of the population — the real figure is likely between 25-30% — which suggests they think they are numerous enough to successfully revolt against the Persians.

While the Revolutionary Guards have come down hard on any signs of revolt, as they did in Tabriz in 1981, and followed up by executing  hundreds, there are now important new considerations. First, Azerbaijan is now an independent state, not a Soviet puppet. That means it could supply weaponry to fellow Azeris in Iran. Its territory could also serve both as a staging area, for attacks inside Iran by Iranian Azeris, and also as a place to which those Iranian Azeris could withdraw and regroup after such attacks.

The attraction of secession, and creating one country with fellow Azeris, has become stronger in recent decades, as the Iranian government has become ever more unbending and ruthless. But the most important factor in promoting an Azeri uprising would be that the other main non-Persian minorities in Iran, the Kurds, Baluchis, nd Arabs, would all have risen in revolt at the same time.

Should the Iranian Kurds, taking heart from an independent (formerly Iraqi) Kurdistan, manage to hold their own against Iran’s military, this would be a signal to the other oppressed minorities in Iran — the Azeris to the northwest, the Baluchis to the east, and the Arabs to the south — to rise up, so as to force the Iranians to fight on four domestic fronts simultaneously, even as they would still be fighting abroad in four different countries, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. There is no better way to undo the Islamic Republic than to encourage its minorities, who make up nearly half the population, to renew and extend their local insurrections, keeping Iran’s military constantly off guard and forcing it to fight on eight fronts — four domestic, and four abroad — simultaneously.

But it all begins with an independent Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq. It should not be opposed by Washington, or London, or Paris. It should be encouraged. Those Kurds will need some Western military supplies, and unlike the Arabs in Baghdad, they have earned that support. If the Americans won’t supply it directly, then at least they should let it be delivered through the Israelis, who have no such qualms or inhibitions. The Iraqi Kurds have been both pro-Western (and pro-American) for many decades, an attitude that only deepened with the American air cover provided for Kurdistan against Saddam Hussein. The American military in Iraq soon learned that they could trust the Kurds. In Kurdistan, there has never been a single terrorist attack on American soldiers. Furthermore, the Kurds  have reportedly been among the bravest and most effective fighters against ISIS, both in Iraq and in Syria. All that surely deserves political recompense, rather than abandonment.

The more one studies the pros and cons of an independent Kurdistan, the more attractive it appears.  It’s certainly the most promising way to disrupt a major part of the Camp of Islam, to keep Turkey permanently off-balance, to take a slice out of Syria, and another out of Iraq, and, especially, to encourage and set in motion in Iran, currently the most dangerous Muslim country, four separatist movements: the Kurds to the west, the Baluchis to the east, the Azeris to the northwest, the Arabs to the south. And these centripetal forces will be operating while the central government already has its hands full in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Finally, the Arab effort in Iraq to suppress the Kurds raises an issue that needs constantly to be stressed by the world’s Infidels. 80% of the world’s Muslims are non-Arabs. We need to point out to them how Islam is, and always has been, a vehicle for Arab supremacism. A Muslim is supposed to read the Qur’an in Arabic, to turn prostrate in prayer five times a day toward Mecca, in Arabia, to go on the hajj, again to Mecca, often to adopt an Arab name. Some non-Arab Muslims even create false Arab lineages for themselves, tellingly aware as they are of the superior position of Arabs within Islam. The treatment of the Kurds by the Arabs in Iraq can be held up as an example of that Arab supremacism. Understood in that damning light, Islam itself becomes less attractive to non-Arab Muslims.

Yes, those are the pros of an independent Kurdistan.

First published in Jihad Watch.

clear
Posted on 10/26/2017 5:31 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Ain't That A Shame: Fats Domino Has Died
clear
clear
Posted on 10/25/2017 5:52 PM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Trump: Travails and Opportunities
clear

Yes, we should look at the Clintons’ improprieties.

by Conrad Black

The pattern of the Trump administration continues to evolve, despite many perturbations, toward a more conventional relationship with the media and the country. I was taken gently to task last week by my colleague Jonah Goldberg for applying “Never Trumper” as an umbrella for all those who would rather endure horrible personal fates than suffer the president to complete his term — rather than, as it apparently means, just Republicans of that view. I was merely being fashionably inclusive, but I repent my heresy and will henceforth refer to vehemently anti-Trump Democrats as the Resistance (though I consider the demarcation otiose). Both groups seem to have given up finally on any serious allegation against the president arising from his relations with Russia, and their flirtation with the 25th Amendment (removal by vote of the cabinet and two-thirds of the Congress for mental or physical incapacity) seems also to have flickered away to the dustbin for hair-raisingly absurd ideas, such as the national television campaign in November to persuade a handful of members of the Electoral College to break their pledges to vote for Trump after he had won the election.

The media-confected weekly Trump outrage has addicted half the country and bored the other half numb. It peaked at the nonsense over the temporary travel ban from terrorism-sponsoring or infected countries (when Senator Schumer purported to believe that the Statue of Liberty was weeping, like a statue of Saint Mary in western Ireland), and again after Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe and Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer facilitated the tag-team riot in Charlottesville between Black Lives Matter and the Antifa Fascists on one side, and the neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan on the other. This weekly festival has sputtered down to a pathetic squeak last week, with the claim that the president mishandled a call of condolence to the widow of a soldier (La David Johnson) who died in Niger, as reported by the loudmouthed Florida congresswoman Frederica Wilson, formerly best known for her outrageous reflections on the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Her allegation was eviscerated with stirring finality by White House chief of staff General John Kelly, who had spoken with the president about the call and movingly remembered for the White House press corps what General Joseph Dunford (now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) had said to him when his (Kelly’s) son was killed in action in Afghanistan. The mudslinging and scandal-mongering section of the Trump Dementia psychopathic ward has been scraping deeper and less fruitfully into this barrel for months, but are unlikely to exceed the shriekings of Ms. Wilson for sheer and tasteless futility anytime soon.

Apart from the inability to find any connection of Trump to a serious impropriety, despite the teeming investigators who have swarmed over every aspect of his career for a year, and as has been predicted by many (including here), the conduct of Trump’s opponents is emerging steadily and all across the political landscape as a subject of increasing legitimate concern. As if to highlight the unseaworthiness of the Clinton ship, the former secretary of state gave every indication, in recent interviews in London and in Seoul, South Korea, of having taken leave of her battered senses. She informed the British that she lost last year’s election because of the misogyny of the American people (which nevertheless gave her a popular plurality of 3 million, having accorded her a moderate victory in the Democratic primaries of 2008 over Barack Obama, and a steady lead in the polls all through the 2016 election campaign); and because of the intervention of the Russians in the election. These interventions, as far as anyone has been able to deduce, consisted of $6,500 of Facebook electioneering-advertising in a campaign where the two candidates spent over $1.85 billion (including the PACs and super PACs), and the release of some hacked emails, whose authenticity is not disputed, that may have contributed to FBI director James Comey’s cuckoo-bird reentry and withdrawal over the Clinton emails in the last weeks of the campaign. Mrs. Clinton went to South Korea and violated the protocol that is almost never broken, that former presidents and presidential candidates do not criticize the incumbent president while outside the United States. She ignored the fact that the North Korean nuclear issue has been quiet for longer than at any time in many months and that the Chinese are helping much more effectively than they ever have before in dealing with this issue (including when Mrs. Clinton headed the State Department), and she told the South Koreans that President Trump’s belligerent language was aggravating the problem. Circumstances would indicate otherwise.

She will have returned home to a country that is finally beginning to look seriously at what the Clinton Foundation, former president Clinton, and then–Secretary of State Clinton did in the Uranium One affair. Again, I have been intermittently suggesting that a combination of gifts and pledges to the Clinton Foundation by interested parties of approximately $131 million to $145 million (while Bill Clinton was making introductions in Kazakhstan and Russia with Canadian financier Frank Giustra and others), and the approval by the secretary of state and Attorney General Eric Holder, as is required under national-security legislation, of the sale of substantial American uranium resources to Russia in 2010, are a good deal worthier of official scrutiny than is the phantasmagorical charade of Trump-Russian collusion.

It happens that Frank Giustra is a cordial acquaintance, and I believe him to be an honest as well as a capable businessman, and I have no standing to say that what occurred was a sale of official favors, or a violation of the U.S. national-security interest. However, it is also true that these events, coupled with a $500,000 payoff to Bill Clinton for a 30-minute canned speech in Moscow, raise eyebrows and provoke a disagreeable nasal experience. It all requires, at the least, some reassurance that all was as it should have been, and it is finally getting serious attention in parts of the media; and it does not reflect well on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was FBI director at the time, or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Had Donald Trump had any part in such a sequence of transactions, the media and Resistance character-assassination squads would darken the air with their fusillades and all the hot-air-balloon-brained film stars in Weinsteinwood would be screaming like banshees.

The congressman from Weinsteinwood, Adam Schiff, who for months quivered with sanctimony as he announced Trump’s imminent exposure for seditious relations with an unfriendly foreign power, is now reduced to saying, as if filling in for a constituent in auditioning for the role of Moses reading the lapidary commandments, that Trump’s son demonstrated “preparedness to collude” with Russia in the short meeting with the Russian lawyer who wanted to talk about adoptions and the case of Sergei Magnitsky (a Russian investigator of corruption murdered in a Moscow prison in 2009). Last year’s very forgettable unsuccessful vice-presidential candidate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said this meeting might have been an act of “treason.” As a public service, I remind Congressman Schiff that Donald Trump Jr. sent an email expressing a clear willingness to hear from a Russian source information that was promised to be harmful to the Clinton campaign. That does not imply a willingness to collude in anything.

The project of getting the Trump presidency into high gear is, almost imperceptibly, gathering strength.

If the Never Trumpers and the Resistance are worn down by attrition after a long and bitter sequence of defeats, the group that doesn’t like Mr. Trump, but doesn’t hate him, and wants him to succeed, if only for the country’s sake, is also flagging. Peggy Noonan, an astute observer and a uniformly well-disposed and generous-spirited person, has tried to warm to Trump but clearly finds it difficult. Such a close aide of so charming, unrufflable, and altogether admirable a president as Ronald Reagan would have some problem adjusting to almost any successor. And her concerns are always perceptive. But her suggestion a few days ago in the Wall Street Journal that Donald Trump’s career could follow a trajectory that resembled in any way that of 2008 vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin shows that Trump-controversy fatigue afflicts Ms. Noonan. This is understandable, but it induces unjustified pessimism. Donald Trump won his election to national office, unlike Governor Palin, and while there are “jerky sideshows,” he is slowly getting the better of his more extreme opponents, has shaped up his inner circle, has many excellent department heads in place, and has made substantial progress in economic growth and confidence, reduction of illegal immigration, counterterrorism, containing the North Korean crisis, resisting the eco-extremists, and moving toward tax reform. There have been many disappointments and stylistic enormities, but this is no time to throw in the towel and imagine devising U.S. Russian policy by fixedly staring across the Bering Strait as the former governor of Alaska might have done.

Getting the Trump presidency into high gear has been an implacable challenge for everyone, and has not yet been crowned with success, but the project is, almost imperceptibly, gathering strength.

First published in National Review Online.

clear
Posted on 10/25/2017 5:27 AM by Conrad Black
clear
Tuesday, 24 October 2017
Twelve charged over Rotherham child sex abuse investigation sent to Crown Court
clear

From the Rotherham Advertiser

TWELVE men accused of 44 offences in connection with an investigation into child sexual abuse in Rotherham will appear before the Crown Court in December.

The defendants, who appeared before Sheffield Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, are (all addresses are Rotherham unless stated): Ilqak Yousef (33) of Tooker Road; Imran Akhtar (36) of Godstone Road; Nabeel Kurshid (34), of Weetwood Road; Ajmal Rafiq (38), of Warwick Street; Tanweer Ali (36), of Godstone Road; Aftab Hussain (38), of York Road; Abid Saddiq (36), of South Street; Sharaz Hussain (33), of Fraser Road; and Salah Ahmed El-Hakam (38), of Tudor Close, Sheffield; Mohammed Ahsen (33), of Leyland, Lancashire; Waseem Khaliq (33), of Wetherby; and Masaued Malik (33).

Not guilty pleas were indicated for all but one of the defendants. Malik gave no indication of plea.The 12 men were bailed to appear before Sheffield Crown Court on December 1. 

The charges are as follows:
Abid Saddiq: four counts of rape of a girl aged under 16; five of indecent assault of a girl aged under 16.

Mohammed Ashen: two counts each of rape and indecent assault.

Imran Akhtar: four counts of indecent assault and one each of supplying a Class B drug, rape of a girl aged under 16, aiding and abetting rape of a girl aged under 16, sexual touching of a girl aged 13 or over, and procuring a female under 21 for unlawful sexual intercourse. 

Tanweer Ali: two counts each of rape and indecent assault, plus one of false imprisonment.

Aftab Hussain: three counts of rape; two of indecent assault of a girl aged under 16; one of detaining a child to keep her from a person having lawful control.

Ajmal Rafiq: indecent assault of a girl aged under 16 and false imprisonment.

Nabeel Kurshid and Ilqak Yousef are both accused of two rapes and one indecent assault.

Salah Ahmed El-Hakam and Waseem Khaliq each face one count of rape.

Masaeud Malik and Sharaz Hussain each face one count of indecent assault of a girl aged under 16.

The Daily Mail has some photographs

Abid Saddiq, 36, used a hat and scarf to cover his face and refused to answer questions as he arrived for his first court appearance. Sharp eyed readers will recognise who is asking the questions

clear
Posted on 10/24/2017 1:14 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Monday, 23 October 2017
Are They Taking No Prisoners in Raqqa?
clear

by Gary Fouse

This Fox News report strongly implies that coalition forces fighting ISIS in Syria (and perhaps Iraq as well) are taking no prisoners when it comes to foreign fighters. I hope it is true.

Obviously, ISIS is no signatory to the Geneva Convention, but it still raises the question of morality. I would argue, however, that this is a war unlike any other. The ISIS fighters, aside from the fact that they wear no national uniforms, do not represent any country, and do not adhere to any civilized rules of warfare to begin with, are vastly different from normal enemy soldiers.

Even in World War II, notwithstanding the fact that many German and Japanese soldiers committed gross war crimes, many did not. Many were merely sent into battle and fought honorably. The Allies had a system of war tribunals that dealt with those who committed war crimes. (Of course, many escaped justice altogether.) Those who fought honorably were entitled to humane treatment when captured until the cessation of hostilities. We maintained that principle during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.

In my view, no ISIS fighter are fighting honorably, no matter how much they might think so due to their twisted Islamic ideology. They have conducted themselves like vicious animals. As to the foreign fighters, no sensible country should want them back-not even to clog up their courts and prisons. One known exception is Sweden, a nation that has lost its mind. They actually welcome ISIS fighters who left Sweden back. They provide them with new identities, housing, and job training. It is the height of folly. Sweden will pay the price with the deaths of its own citizens on its own streets.

I say let the Iraqis, Syrians, and Kurds deal with this scum as they wish. We cannot allow any of these animals back into our own countries. We have no business sending consular officers to look after them, transporting them back home, and giving them the benefit of a trial, defense lawyers, appeals and all. If and when they are identified, the US and other nations should take steps to revoke their citizenship (if naturalized) and leave them there to the mercies of the local authorities who captured them.

I hope no American soldier is put in the position of shooting defenseless prisoners. However, if the above report is accurate, this is a time to turn our heads and ask no questions.

clear
Posted on 10/23/2017 6:14 PM by Gary Fouse
clear
clear
Showing 16-31 of 111 [Previous 15] [Next 15]

Order at Amazon or Amazon UK today!

Order on Amazon.or Amazon UK.


Order from Amazon or Amazon UK today!


Amazon donates to World Encounter Institute Inc when you shop at smile.amazon.com/ch/56-2572448. #AmazonSmile #StartWithaSmile

Subscribe

Categories

Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew Harrod (4) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (864) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (581) Daniel Mallock (5) David J. Baldovin (1) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Dexter Van Zile (74) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (6) Esmerelda Weatherwax (9685) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (69) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (156) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (330) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (12) Hugh Fitzgerald (21124) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (23) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janice Fiamengo (1) jeffrey burghauser (1) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2513) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (2) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (5) John M. Joyce (391) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (25) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (1) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (43) Michael Curtis (653) Michael Rechtenwald (16) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2590) New English Review Press (82) Nidra Poller (73) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (133) Rebecca Bynum (7192) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (26) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (884) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (32) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
clear
Site Archive