Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > Europe
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Europe News from the European continent.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2010, 11:11 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation "You can't fight Islamism with ideas coming out of Europe"

"You can't fight Islamism with ideas coming out of Europe"

Interview conducted in Berlin on October 27, 2010

Citizen Times: Mr. Pipes, you head various organizations concerning the Middle East and Islam, and are one of the best known American writers on these subjects. How did this all begin for you?

Daniel Pipes: I am a historian of Islam with a special interest in the role of Islam in public life. I received my Ph.D. in 1978, just as Ayatollah Khomeini appeared. For the first time in modern history, Islam had a large and obvious role in Western public life. What had been in the 1970s an abstract interest turned very practical. Islamic matters subsequently became very topical. That prompted me to transit from medieval history to current events. While I cover many other topics besides Islam, Islam remains central to my interests. I have a perspective I hope is useful to understand the role of Islam in politics.

Citizen Times: And what is that perspective?

Daniel Pipes: That Islam is deeply important to the public lives of Muslims. That Islam is a religion of laws, and those laws are quite permanent and universal. That they are not the same everywhere at all times, but the basics are consistent. That there are times of greater emphasis and times of lesser emphasis but Muslims always come back to these laws. Now, of course, is a time of greater emphasis. Islamic laws have far greater power than they had when I entered this field over forty years ago. How does one understand this change; how do Muslims view it, and how does the West respond to it? – these are some of the questions that I focus on.

Citizen Times: You emphasize the difference between Islam and Islamism. Why?

Daniel Pipes: It is a mistake to see all of Islam as Islamism. Islamism is a trend within Islam, at the moment a very powerful one. People who have just arrived at the topic often think Islamism is all of Islam. As someone who followed Islamic issues forty years ago, when Islamism barely existed, I have a different perspective. Further, plenty of Muslims hate Islamism. So, it is a mistake to equate Muslims with Islamists, to assume that all Muslims agree on applying Islamic law to become strong and rich or to achieve social justice.

Citizen Times: What does Islamism mean to you? Is it just a very traditional way of Islam or the terrorist way like Al-Qaeda does or the political Islam way like the Muslim Brotherhood?

Daniel Pipes: The Muslim Brotherhood is the most important Islamist organization. Hassan al-Banna in Egypt modernized Islamic ideas in the 1920s and adapted them to how we now live. He and others turned traditional Islam into an ideology. The 1920s was a period when totalitarianism looked like the way of the future in Germany, Russia, and especially in Italy. Banna took basic totalitarian ideas and applied them to Islam. He inserted Islamic content into a totalitarian structure. Islamism is modern, just like fascism and communism are modern.

Al-Qaeda comes out of a quite different tradition, the Wahhabi one, originating in Arabia.

Citizen Times: Why do Islam and totalitarianism combine so successfully?

Daniel Pipes: For some decades the combination wasn't that successful. It eventually prevailed thanks to much work by many Islamists over a long time – plus a felt need for this outlook. The great challenge to Muslims in the modern period is to explain what went wrong: Why are Muslims, who believe they should be the wealthiest and most powerful people, in fact the least wealthy and least powerful? What went wrong? Especially from the 1970s forward, Islamism has provided a widely convincing answer to that question: If you want to be successful, comes the reply, then apply Islamic law. Live by the law. Spread the law.

Citizen Times: But this is a quite similar view to the Jewish one. And Jews are not at all dangerous to the world …

Daniel Pipes: Islam and Judaism are similar in that both are based on laws, unlike Christianity. But Jewish law as understood the last 2,000 years is limited to private law. In contrast, Islamic law is both private and public. There is no Jewish law about warfare; but there is an Islamic law of warfare.

Citizen Times: Is Islam a religion?

Daniel Pipes: Yes, Islam is a monotheistic religion like Judaism and Christianity. Islamism is a radical utopian ideology like fascism and communism.

Citizen Times: We defeated fascism and communism through wars. Is there a chance to defeat Islamism and just have Islam the religion?

Daniel Pipes: Yes. World War II ended fascism as a world force; it's not been a serious phenomenon since then. The Cold War effectively ended communism. The Islamist challenge must be defeated in similar fashion. 1945 resulted from blood and steel; 1991 resulted from complex factors, but it was in its final stages not violent. These are the endpoints, total violence and almost no violence. The way to victory against Islamism will surely fall somewhere in between.

Citizen Times: What does this mean practically? Do we have to fight wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran to bring them democracy and finally stop Islamism?

Daniel Pipes: In principle, yes to democracy, but at this time, go slow, slow, slow because, ironically, democracy at present strengthens Islamism. I agreed with George W. Bush's change in policy in 2003 to focus on building democracy but warned then of the need to proceed cautiously. He wasn't careful and therefore created new problems.

Defeating Islamism requires the use of every means from bombers to radios, from fighting a hot war to fighting a cultural war. We should use economics, diplomacy, and all else. Wars are not just fought on the literal battlefield anymore but often are principally about ideas. There is too much focus on violence, especially terrorist violence. People tend to reduce the problem to a "war on terror." Of course, terrorism is part of it, but not the whole of it.

Citizen Times: Is terror not necessary to promote Islamism?

Daniel Pipes: Not at all. The record shows that Islamists succeed more with non-violent means than violent ones. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey and Islamist organizations in the West have greater success than Khomeini or Al-Qaeda. They achieve more by working through the political system, the schools, the media, and the law courts than do their counterparts by blowing things up. How can killing people get you to the top when you are as weak as the Islamists are? In contrast, it is not hard to see how working the system gets you to the top. I watch with fascination and horror as that process takes place in the West, and most rapidly in the United Kingdom. Turkey and the United Kingdom are particularly significant countries to watch.

Assuming Iranians do not acquire or explode atomic weapons, Turkey is the greater long-term threat, say in 20, 30 years. Iran will not be such a long-term problem because Iranians resist Islamism. Turkey is the greatest problem going forward because Islamists are working through the system there and doing it right. Note: There is no terrorism coming out of Turkey.

Citizen Times: But how can we win this war of ideas in our countries? We show our free life every day to the Muslim communities, but they seem to get more and more distant.

Daniel Pipes: Two steps are necessary to win this war. First, non-Muslims must use the many means at their disposal. Second, Muslims must offer an alternative to Islamism. One needs an Adenauer, one needs a Yeltzin, who will offer something better. These are not perfect analogies, but they give an idea what I mean. It is not enough to defeat the totalitarian regime; someone has to offer an alternative vision. That's where reform Muslims play a crucial role. They are just beginning this work and it's going to be a long time before they have a full program to offer. It is critical that they get help and encouragement from non-Muslims.

Citizen Times: You disagree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who opposes the Muslim reformers, because she thinks, they mix up everything and make things even worse?

Daniel Pipes: I respect her very much, but I also disagree with her on this point. We need a policy to move Islam in our direction. Denouncing Islamism is not enough; we need a program to defeat it, a mechanism to take us to victory. Anti-Islam critics like Ayaan Hirsi Ali do not offer such a program.

All religions, including Islam, have histories, meaning that they change over time. I saw this in my own career, for Islamism was almost nonexistent when I entered the field of Islamic studies in the late 1960s. Today it dominates. If Islamism can rise, it can also fall. In contrast, Hirsi Ali sees Islam as always static and unchanging.

Citizen Times: She would say her program is education: education about the secular state and humanistic values. Isn't that a program?

Daniel Pipes: Two points: First, she's partially restating what I am saying about reform Islam. Teaching Muslims humanism ultimately means reforming Islam. By the way, that was the situation that prevailed in the Muslim "liberal age" of 1800-1940.

Second, the Islamist idea is so powerful that Western secular education does not succeed. We see this in Europe, where state schools teach secularism but largely fail to convince Muslim students who believe they possess a superior idea, indeed a superior civilization. You can't fight Islamism with secular, humanist ideas coming out of Europe. Only something from within Islam can defeat it; ideas coming from Muslims must argue with other ideas coming from Muslims. It is an internal Muslim civil war, except the one side hasn't deployed any troops yet, giving it a lopsided quality.

Citizen Times: This means, Geert Wilders is wrong in saying Islam is unchangeable?

Daniel Pipes: Yes. I consider him a heroic figure and have written that he is the most important politician in Europe. He and I are in the same trench. We are fighting the same enemies. But we have a different understanding of the future of Islam. I don't see that he has a feasible program within a context of a liberal democracy. One cannot, and I do not want to, throw away all that we have achieved to deal with the Islamists. I wish to deal with them consistent with who we are.

Muslims have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. They just don't have special rights. I want them to be regular citizens, not worse or better off. We have legislatures because things change. You can't have laws that continue forever. I am perfectly willing to adapt to Muslims and Islam in a reasonable fashion. I am not willing, however, fundamentally to change who we are. When Muslims come to the West, they have to accept Western ways. They can request reasonable accommodation within the existing system; they can't change the system itself. Islamists are trying to change the system. We must push back and say no, absolutely not.

Citizen Times: Muslims in Europe are more criminal than the indigenous populations, less employed, and more dependent on the welfare state.

Daniel Pipes: Pathologies abound among Muslims in Europe: poverty, unemployment, violent crime, drug trafficking, and so forth. Yes, Muslims are partly responsible for this set of problems but, frankly, it also results partly from actions by indigenous Europeans. Europeans are often unwilling to accept, employ, and deal with Muslims as equals. Günter Wallraff, a German reporter, pretended to be a Turk in 1985 and thereby demonstrated the troubles a Gastarbeiter faced. I would not want to be looking for a job in Germany, then or now, with the name Mohammed.

Citizen Times: Concerning getting a job with a Muslim name: Did Germans always reject those people out of xenophobia, or did they reject them because of all the problems connected to Muslim employees?

Daniel Pipes: Both: The situation results from bias and from behavior by Muslims.

By way of contrast, note the United States, where social pathologies barely exist among Muslims. The U.S. has problems with extremists and terrorists, to be sure, but no general "Muslim problem" exists there. No areas of Muslim geographic concentration have developed, with just one or two exceptions, and those are not particularly problematic. Americans more readily accept Muslims and employ them. Further, the lesser welfare system in the United States makes Muslims less dependent on government hand-outs and more entrepreneurial. The combination of bias and welfare explains much about the predicament of Muslims in Europe.

Citizen Times: The American journalist Christopher Caldwell wrote a book titled On the Revolution in Europe in which he argues that Muslim immigration will change Europe from its roots.

Daniel Pipes: I agree and believe Europe faces major problems and bleak options. I see either of two likely difficult futures for Europe. One is summarized by the word Eurabia, meaning an extrapolation of the trends of the last 55 years: more Muslims, more Islam, more Islamic law, and more Islamization, as symbolized by the Mosque of Notre Dame in Paris. The other future involves resistance to Islamization, as represented by your brand new political party, Die Freiheit.

Actually, the latter trend is growing faster. If you draw a graph of Muslims and Islam since 1955, it goes steadily up. But if you draw a graph of anti-Islam since 1990 it ascends faster. Everywhere you look there is a growth in anti-Islamic feelings.

I worry in both cases. I don't like Eurabia, and I fear that anti-Islamic sentiments will lead to populism, fascism, civil insurrection, and violence. The widespread reluctance by leaders to take up this topic only makes matters worse.

Citizen Times: So is this anti-Islamic movement just a new form of fascism or xenophobia, or is there really a danger in Islam?

Daniel Pipes: Reality inspires anti-Islamic sentiments, but I worry about them. I hope very much that Europeans will act responsibly. Right now, one finds a reluctance to deal with political parties critical of Islam. There is a political crisis over this in Sweden right now. When Jörg Haider was prime minister, Austria was treated like Rhodesia. I did not care for Haider, but there needs to be an acknowledgement of the fears he represented.

The more that legacy parties ignore such fears, the more extreme their expression might become. The old parties have a responsibility to acknowledge this set of issues and incorporate them, legitimize them so they do not become radicalized. The Netherlands is probably the key country because it is furthest along in this process. What is Geert Wilders going to do? What will the response to him be? This is an important precedent for all Europe.

Last edited by Paparock; 02-20-2016 at 04:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 03:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Islamic Objective in Britain

The Islamic Objective in Britain (YouTube)

Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 06:08 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Five Stages of Islam

The Five Stages of Islam

By Richard Butrick

Forget the Five Pillars of Islam. It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of Western Democracy. Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press. We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment values.

Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the story is the same. First comes the taqiyya and the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam. Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya. He has gulled everyone from Bloomberg to Maureen Dowd of the NYT -- who fanaticizes over male Muslims. Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.

Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead

Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).

Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities - like walking dogs near Mosques).

Stage 2. Establish Outposts

Population density 2% - 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. A recent example is that of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal who is back in Jamaica after being kicked out of the UK. Sound harmless? Read on:
The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons.
Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.

Population density 5% - 10% (France, Sweden, Netherlands).

First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia. When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam. In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.

Population density 20% - 50% (Europe 2020?).

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.

Population density > 50%.

Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels. As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last. Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.

Our current Western world leaders are suckered by taqiyya and kitman and steering us into stage 3. Allen West seems to get it but I can't see that any of the crop of current GOP contenders really get it. Fear of bigotry at stage 2 is the Islamists' greatest weapon. Crucified on the cross of bigotry -- is that the future of the Western democracies? Bigotry is only bigotry if it is out of touch with reality and it is the suckers who believe the stage 1-2 peace pitch of Islam who are the ones who are out of touch with reality -- not to mention our mesmerized President. The first GOP candidate who announces to Imam Rauf and his supporters, "Fine. A Mosque at ground zero. But how about a cathedral in Mecca first? It is part of our Christian outreach program of bridge building." will be the first to get it and a big boost in the polls.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2011, 11:56 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow U.K. to release scores of "high risk extremists"

What could possibly go wrong? U.K. to release scores of "high risk extremists"

And they know now they will have trouble monitoring them. What exactly is the plan here? To hope they're overwhelmed with gratitude for the early release? "Public ‘at risk’ as 70 terrorists released," by Kevin Schofield for the Sun, June 1:
Up to 70 convicted terrorists due to be released this year will not be properly monitored, a probation chief warned yesterday.
The "high risk" extremists, some of them bomb makers, could be walking the streets after being freed on licence.
But Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said cuts to services meant adequate checks could not be kept on them.
He added: "They have to be supervised by us and the police at a fairly intensive level.
"My fear is as cuts go deeper we're going to be unable to give them the close attention that we have hitherto. These men require maximum supervision and we're not going to be able to do it."
Among those set for release are Saajit Badat, jailed for 13 years in 2005 for plotting with shoe bomber Richard Reid. Also due to walk free is Moinul Abedin, jailed for 20 years in 2002 for making bomb detonators.
MPs said Government plans to water down control orders that allow dangerous individuals to be put under virtual house arrest will make the problem even worse.
Labour home affairs spokesman Gerry Sutcliffe said: "I think there is a danger that the security services are going to be overstretched.
"I would urge ministers to keep control orders in place until there is a better alternative."
Tory MP Patrick Mercer said: "The system needs a radical overhaul to protect the public."
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 02:08 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Home Secretary warns universities have been "complacent" about jihadist indoctrinatio

Home Secretary warns universities have been "complacent" about jihadist indoctrination

As an earlier report noted, there is also a "reluctance to co-operate with the police on the part of some universities that did not want to be seen to be 'spying' on their students." That is bad enough. But there is an even deeper reluctance to cause offense or challenge politically correct dogma by finding fault actual Islamic teachings. That reluctance encourages a deep state of denial that there could even really be that much of a problem. And so jihadist groups continue to flourish.

"Universities 'complacent' over Islamic radicals, Theresa May warns," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, June 5:
Theresa May told The Daily Telegraph that universities were not taking the issue of radicalisation seriously enough and that it was too easy for Muslim extremists to form groups on campuses “without anyone knowing”.
She also said the Government would cut funding to any Islamic group that espoused extremist views, and set out the “key British values” to which those seeking support must subscribe. It is understood that about 20 groups are already losing their funding.
Mrs May made her comments ahead of the publication this week of the updated version of the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy.
“I think for too long there’s been complacency around universities,” she said. “I don’t think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do.”
Mrs May said universities had to “send very clear messages” and “ask themselves some questions about what happens on their campuses”.
She also criticised the Federation of Student Islamic Societies for not challenging extremism sufficiently.
“They need to be prepared to stand up and say that organisations that are extreme or support extremism or have extremist speakers should not be part of their grouping,” Mrs May said.
Her remarks follow comments made by Nicola Dandridge, the head of Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, claiming there was no evidence that extremist speakers at university encouraged violence.
As part of the Prevent strategy, the Government will define as extremists anyone who “does not subscribe to human rights, equality before the law, democracy and full participation in society”, including those who “promote or implicitly tolerate the killing of British soldiers”.
There is some wiggle room for dissimulation on all of those terms except for the last. One line that Muslim groups in Britain consistently cannot cross without a public response rightfully continues to be the nation's expectation of respect for British soldiers.
Mrs May said: “We are looking at a set of values we believe we have here in the UK and those people opposed to those values are people who the Government won’t be funding or engaging with.”
It is understood that the strategy will also name 25 boroughs that are most at risk from Islamist extremism, including areas of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester.
There will also be a move to limit access to extremist websites from public buildings, particularly schools and public libraries.
That will be controversial, and could be quite a test for the moderate/extremist distinction.
Details of partnerships with YouTube and AOL to try to tackle extremism online, using lessons learned from anti-paedophile policing will be made public.
As well as fighting violent extremism, the Government will tackle extremist philosophies in general, including groups that can act as a “stepping stone” to terrorism.
“There’s an ideology out there that we need to challenge and when we first came in as a government one of the things we were very clear about here at the Home Office was we needed to look at extremism, not just violent extremism,” Mrs May said....
Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 04:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow U.K.: Millions wasted on poorly focused campaigns against "extremism"

U.K.: Millions wasted on poorly focused campaigns against "extremism"

You can't fight an enemy you won't name; you can't discredit an ideology seeking to destroy your way of life when you're afraid to pin down the specifics except, perhaps, for the use of violence. All "extremism" amounts to is a position relative to others, which is why hoping for "moderation" is also useless without meaningful points of reference. The measures announced by Prime Minister Cameron's office to include advocacy for Sharia law as an "extremist" position will constitute progress to the extent that they are implemented. "Failed anti-terror campaigns 'waste of money', Prevent strategy admits," by Andrew Hough and Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, June 7 (thanks to JG):
The “flawed” efforts by the previous government to focus on international projects “diverted valuable resources” away from preventing home-grown terrorism, the new Prevent strategy will concede.
The strategy, being launched on Tuesday by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will also say that such efforts also undermined attempts to “convince Muslim Communities” that “terrorism is unacceptable and wrong”.
Mrs May will also admit that some of the annual £63 million funding to tackle extremism, which is split between the Home Office, Foreign office and Department for Communities, has been handed to groups with hard-line beliefs.
Around 20 groups will have funding withdrawn.
The strategy will say that previous messages about terrorism were put out by the government without a clear idea of the audience for whom they were intended.
“At best, this wasted money and diverted valuable resources,” the report says.
“At worst, it gave the impression that the Government had to convince Muslim communities in this country of something which the vast majority know very well already – that terrorism is unacceptable and wrong.”
There's an easy way around that for Muslim groups: condemn terrorism for public consumption, while maintaining jihad warfare is something altogether different.
It argues that in future overseas work “must wherever possible have a demonstrable impact on UK domestic security”.
The document says: "Previous work in this area has made some progress but has not consistently reached the few people who are most susceptible to terrorist propaganda.
"It has failed to recognise the way in which terrorist ideology makes use of ideas espoused by extremist organisations and has not fully understood the implications this should have for the scope for our work.
One step forward, two steps back:
"It has not effectively engaged with and used the influence and reach of communities and community groups. Previous Prevent work has sometimes given the impression that Muslim communities as a whole are more ‘vulnerable’ to radicalisation than other faith or ethnic groups."...
Yes, please keep "engaging with" all those Methodist youth who are vulnerable to radicalization, and might blow up a bus while singing "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling."...
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 01:31 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Islam’s War for the Extinction of the Kafir Race

Islam’s War for the Extinction of the Kafir Race
By Jake Neuman

Islam, under the guise of a religion, is a political tool for making the Kafir race become history, leaving the Muslim race to inherit the earth exclusively. And the Kafir race walking the same path rather willingly.

Allah, the Muslim God, has divided the human species into two races: Muslim and Kafir.

MUSLIM RACE: The Muslim Race only includes believers in Allah and his messenger. Muslims are the superior race in all aspects. Allah divides all nations into one of two major categories: Dar-al Harb (house of war) and Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule).
  • Q 49:10 The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two contending brothers; and fear Allah.
  • Q 49:11 O ye who believe! Let not some men among you deride others: Nor let some women deride others; perchance they may be better than they. Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by offensive names: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, to be used of one after he has believed.
The Muslim race must be harsh with the kafir race while having love only among themselves.

Q 48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves... that He {Allah} may enrage the disbelievers with the sight of them {the believers}.

Member of the Muslim race are guaranteed accession to an eternal virgin-filled paradise by shedding the blood of the kafir.

In Islam, the murder of kafirs by Muslims is a divine holy acts sanctioned by

Allah, which opens to Muslims the door of Allah’s brothel-like Paradise.

Q 9:111: “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

KAFIR RACE: The Kafir race is a vile sub-human species with no humanity. They can be murdered, tortured, terrorized, enslaved, raped and are made up ofnon-believers in Allah and his messenger. Iran's revolutionary leader Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini once declared that "the following eleven are unclean: first urine, second feces, third semen, fourth corpses, fifth blood, sixth dogs, seventh pigs, eighth non-Muslims, ninth wine, tenth beer, and eleventh the sweat of a camel which has consumed impure food." Khomeini had gone on to add, "every aspect of a non-Muslim is unclean.

Says Egyptian born British cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri:

Killing a Kafir who is fighting you is OK. Killing a Kafir for any reason, you can say, it is OK - even if there is no reason for it. You can poison, ambush and kill non-believers. You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don't ask shall I do this, just do it.

Kafirs are generally divided into two main groups, Dhimmis and Harbis. A Dhimmi is a Kafir who pays the Jizya (protection tax) and accepts the supremacy of Islam while given permission to live and practice his religion (only Judaism and Christianity) under strict rules. A Harbi is either 1) a Christian or Jew not willing to accept Islam or live as a dhimmi paying the jizya tax, or 2) a person from any non-Abrahamic faith or no faith at all, unwilling to convert to Islam. Harbis are transgressors on Allah’s earth and therefore open enemies to the Muslims who are sanctioned by the Quran to strive against such individuals until religion is only for Islam.

According to the Quran, Kafirs are Najis, meaning dirty or unclean.

Q 9:28 O you who believe! The pagans are nothing but (najis) unclean, so they shall not approach the sacred Mosque...Allah not only refers to an entire group of humanity as unclean but forbids them from entering Islamic places of worship.

Following are a list of hate-crimes that Islam permits Muslims to commit against the Kafirs.


Allah commands Muslims to behead the Kafir or take them as prisoners for ransom in battle. This command is, in fact, Allah’s mercy to Muslims so as to test their faith, Allah promises that should a believer be killed in battle, his deeds will be of highest virtue worth straight landing in Islamic Paradise.
  • Q 47:4 When you meet the kafir in battle, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make them prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favour or ransom them until the war terminates. Thus are you commanded. But if it had been Allah's will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them Himself; but He lets you fight in order to test you. Those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.
  • Q 8:12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
  • Q 9:5:Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
  • Q 22:19-22: “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”
The message of verses 9:5 & 22:19-22 are: Should the pagan Kafirs readily convert to Islam and openly keep up prayers and other Islamic rituals, they must summarily murdered.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

This verses sanctifies the attacking and killing of the so-called 'people of the book’ (i.e. Jews and Christians), until they are defeated and submitted to the supremacy of Islam and in willing humiliation, pay jizya (submission) tax to Muslims. Verse 9:29 is a divine call to mass-murder and extermination of the Jews and Christians, like verse 9:5 is for the Pagans. Only Hitler instructed his followers to exterminate the Jews so completely.

Bukhari 4:52:177:"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."'

Q 8:67: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
It means: Allah insisted on the Prophet to kill all the prisoners, who surrendered to him.

Those of the Kafir race living under Islamic rule may be liable to death sentence for the following actions (p. 609, o11.10 (1)—(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;
(2) conceal spies of hostile forces;
(3) lead a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money.


Following are some of the legalized rules of Jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions:
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. Muslim men can murder their slaves.
(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, did this. This is rape.
(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. All those killed in Jihad are acts of Murder. To kill in the name of God is murder.
(4) Old men and monks could be killed.
(5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. When he refused to reveal the location of the city wealth he was taken and murdered by beheading.
(6) Threat of Murder to force conversions. Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim.
(7) Civilian property may be confiscated.
(8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.
(9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.
(10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
(11) As already shown - People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' orzakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. Refusal or future failure to pay this tax meant your murder. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad, divinely sanctioned by Allah, is aggressive, coercive, and murderous.

  • Q 33.27 And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things
  • Q 8:1 “They ask you about the benefits of capturing the spoils of war. Tell them: ‘The benefits belong to Allah and to His Messenger.’”
  • Q 3:151 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

    Q 8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
  • Q 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”
  • Q 9:123O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto Him
  • Q 9:73 Oh Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell…
  • Q 9:33. - “It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).”
  • 2:193 (or 2:189): “... Fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left.”
  • 3:19 (or 3:17):- “The only religion approved by Allah is Islam. Ironically, those who have received the scripture are the ones who dispute this fact, despite the knowledge they have received, due to jealousy. For such rejectors of Allah's revelations, Allah is most strict in reckoning.”
  • 3:85 - “Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers”
  • 48:16 - “...Ye shall do battle with them, or they shall profess Islam. ...”
  • Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196)
So, Muslims must “do battle” with the kafirs until every human being on earth professes Islam. There must be victory over all the kafir nations and Islam becomes supreme and the only religion on the face of the earth.

The reader must bear in mind that Islam has sanctioned many other tools – slavery, sex-slavery, racism etc. – so as to effect the extinction of the Kafir race, with Muslims remaining the only race to live on the earth.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2014, 05:12 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Claudia Koonz - "How the Nazis Made Anti-Semitism Respectable"

Claudia Koonz - "How the Nazis Made Anti-Semitism Respectable"

Old 07-28-2014, 05:10 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation And Now... Europe's Kristallnacht

And Now... Europe's Kristallnacht
by Douglas Murray

July 28, 2014

They carried banners saying, "Stop Israeli State Terror," but some went off-message, deciding, apparently, that it did not matter if their targets were Israelis or not.

In the Netherlands, fresh from a pro-ISIS rally in Amsterdam, the home of the Chief Rabbi -- not Israeli, just Jewish -- was attacked twice in one week.

We live in a rightful disgust for racism of any kind. And yet here we see -- and nowhere more clearly than in Germany -- the new racist nightmare for Europe.

The backlash in Europe against Israel has been underway since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge. In each country the protests have similarities. And in each they are spear-headed by the same motives and often by the same people.

In London the protests have been dominated young Muslims with the usual smattering of far-left fellow-travellers. They have carried Socialist Worker Party banners saying "Stop Israeli State Terror." But some went off-message, apparently deciding it did not matter if their targets were Israeli or "just" Jews. There have also been the predictable banners comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Adolf Hitler. Others have a more confused relationship with this sinister conflation. One young protestor was photographed at a demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy in London with a poster saying, "Hitler you were right!" Elsewhere the protests have spilled over into occasional outbursts of violence.

Scenes from Europe, July 2014: Left, an anti-Israel protestor in London holds up a sign saying "Hitler you were right". Right, one of a group of anti-Israel thugs who stormed a soccer field in Austria assaults a player from the Israeli team Maccabi Haifa.

People who are "visibly Jewish," people wearing identifiably Jewish dress, have found themselves targeted for abuse. Demonstrators at the biggest central London march assaulted and verbally abused a Jewish woman who had expressed her support for Israel, calling her a "Jew Zionist" among other things, before stealing her mobile phone. In North London, a rabbi was abused by a group of 'youths' who shouted "F*** the Zionists," "F*** the Jews" and "Allah Akhbar."

All of this is mild compared to what has been going on across the English Channel in France. In suburbs and parts of central Paris the violence being perpetrated against the Jewish community culminated in the disturbing spectacle of Parisian Jews barricaded in a synagogue by a crowd of young North Africans seemingly intent on violence. When the police failed to turn up in any numbers, the Jews fought for themselves. These were not all "Jewish vigilantes" as some of the press disturbingly reported -- Jews in their 40s and 50s fighting their way through a mob.

Since then, the French authorities have banned -- as French authorities have the right to do -- some other planned "pro-Palestinian" protests. But the bans seem not to have worked. "Youths," as the media are prone to title the rioters, who mainly come from the suburbs of Paris and other cities, have taken to the streets, anyhow. There are videos of them smashing up pavements in order to get chunks of asphalt to hurl at police. A Paris suburb with a large Jewish -- not Israeli, just Jewish -- population has been a particular focus of protestors. In some video footage, protestors have been shown attacking police cars and assaulting public and private property. The French authorities are clearly trying to get a handle on the protests, but to a considerable extent, events have slipped from their control.

Similar scenes have been seen across the continent. In the Netherlands -- fresh from witnessing a pro-ISIS rally in Amsterdam -- there have been serious incidents at protests. There have been anti-Semitic chants, and the home of the Chief Rabbi in the Netherlands has been attacked twice in one week. In Austria, a soccer game involving an Israeli team had to be called off after Palestinian demonstrators broke onto the pitch. The stands had people waving anti-Israel banners and Turkish flags. But once they were on the pitch, the protestors assaulted the Israeli players, doing flying kicks at them and then further kicking and punching them. Some of the Israeli players fought back and the game was halted.

Most disturbing of all, perhaps, have been events in Germany. During pro-Palestinian protests in Berlin and other German cities, there were chants of "Death to the Jews" and "Gas the Jews." The president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dieter Graumann, described some of the demonstrations as "an explosion of evil and violence-prone hatred of Jews. Never in our lives did we believe it possible that antisemitism of the nastiest and most primitive kind would be chanted on the streets of Germany."

And it is in Germany that such sentiments have met their most appropriate public and political opposition. There, at least, the nature of these protests has not been glossed over. On the contrary there has been a suitable soul-racking over this. How could such a cry have gone up in this country, of all countries? The major German magazine, Bild, has run a cover with the headline, "Raise your voice: Never again Jew Hatred!" The cover is dotted with famous figures in German public life from the President and Chancellor Merkel to other political and public figures. The montage sends out a powerful message. The question is, of course, whether that is enough.

Certainly, across Europe there is a new hatred in the air -- but this hatred is also the old one. The people on the streets of Paris, Berlin, London, Amsterdam and other cities across Europe include the descendants of some of those who fought against, fought for, allied or collaborated with the evil regime which spurred this hatred on last time. But most of the perpetrators are not those people. Most of them are of immigrant backgrounds. In Britain, these are mainly from the Indian sub-continent (with a smaller group from the Gulf countries); in France and the Netherlands, they are from North Africa; in Germany and Austria, largely from Turkey.

All the peoples of Europe can see this but none of them want to identify it. We live so in terror of being politically incorrect. We live in a rightful disgust for racism of any kind. And yet here we see -- and nowhere more clearly than in Germany -- the new racist nightmare for Europe. We thought we had abolished the beast of anti-Semitism from our shores and had made it totally unacceptable. And yet here are people Europe has imported in their millions, failed in varying degrees to assimilate and who now (in considerable numbers) look as if they have taken up precisely the hatred we had all hoped to have left behind. These are dark days in the Middle East. But they are darker days in Europe. Whether we deal with this returned evil or not will be the challenge of this generation.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2014, 05:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Grooming Jihadists

Grooming Jihadists
by Samuel Westrop

July 28, 2014

"These boys were groomed [at the Al Manar Centre] ... so that they are satisfied that what they go to do is right ... once they're groomed, all it takes is someone to say come and I'll take you." — Source close to the Yemeni Community, Cardiff, U.K., as reported in The Telegraph.

All these preachers share one thing in common: they are favorites of the two leading government-subsidized Salafi charities in Britain.

The British government, on June 26, banned Sheikh Mohammad Al Arifi from entering the United Kingdom, after reports in the British media linked the Saudi preacher to the radicalization of British youth now fighting for ISIS in Syria.

Arifi's sermons at the Al Manar Centre in Cardiff in particular, have been linked to the radicalization of three young British Muslims: brothers Nasser and Aseel Muthana and their friend, Reyaad Khan.

Saudi Islamist preacher Muhammad al-Arifi (right) at an iERA stall in London
This ban demonstrates the British government's growing acceptance that Islamist preachers actually do play an important role in driving Muslim youth toward terrorism.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Mohammad Al Arifi denied the charges and voiced condemnation for those who incite Muslims to fight in Syria. His denial, however, was clearly at odds with his earlier declarations. In 2010, Arifi stated in a television broadcast that:

"There is no doubt that a person whom Allah enables to sacrifice his soul, and to fight for the sake of Allah, has been graced with a great honor.
"Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.
"The Koranic verses that deal with fighting the infidels and conquering their countries say that they should convert to Islam, pay the jizya poll tax, or be killed. If the Muslims had implemented this, we would not have reached the humiliation in which we find ourselves today."

In a statement to the media, the British Home Office said: "The UK Government makes no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe they represent a threat to our society. Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who seek to subvert our shared values."

Barak Albayaty, a trustee of the Al Manar Centre, has claimed that the Muthana brothers chose to fight with ISIS not because they were radicalized by speakers visiting the mosque, but "by the internet."

Mohammad Al Arifi was not, nevertheless, the only extremist preacher to give sermons at the Al Manar Centre. Now that the government appears to have accepted that Arifi's presence in Britain serves to radicalize young Muslims, will it also focus on other extreme preachers already in Britain?

Haitham Al Haddad, for instance, is an Islamist preacher who describes Jews as "apes and pigs" and "enemies of God," quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and speaks of a "conflict" between Muslim and Jews. Haddad has spoken at the Al Manar Centre on at least four occasions, two of which took place in 2014. Haddad's written work has also been promoted on the Al Manar Centre's Facebook page. Ali Hammuda, an Islamist preacher at Al Manar, describes Haddad as the "beloved Sheikh Haitham."

Abu Usamah ad-Dhahabi, who has spoken at the Al Manar Centre, calls for the killing of apostates. He has said: "If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?" Dhahabi, according to a report by the Centre for Social Cohesion, also "advocates holy war in an Islamic state; preaches hatred against non-Muslims; that apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death; and that women are inferior to men."

In addition, Muhammad Mustafa Al Muqri, the former spiritual leader of Gama'a Al Islamiyya, the Egyptian affiliate of Al Qaeda, was also invited to speak at Al Manar. One Islamic discussion forum refers to Al Muqri as being, at one point, the Imam of the Centre.

Ahmed Muthana, the father of the Muthana brothers fighting for ISIS in Syria, told the Daily Telegraph that his sons were "brainwashed" after they began attending the Al Manar Centre. He claimed visiting clerics put ideas in the heads of his boys.

The Telegraph further reported that a source close to the Yemeni community in Cardiff said, "These boys were groomed (at Al Manar) – obviously not to the stage to go, but so that they are satisfied that what they go to do is right. It all comes from the same school of thought. ... The teaching [at Al Manar] helped the people recruiting. ... once they're groomed, all it takes is someone to say come and I'll take you."

The Muthana brothers were not radicalized by just one visit from Muhammad Al Arifi. Their decision to wage jihad in Syria was, according to The Telegraph, the result of regular seminars and talks by the extremist preachers listed here.

All these preachers share one thing in common: they are favorites of the two leading government-subsidized Salafi charities in Britain: the Al Muntada Al Islami Trust (also known as the West London Cultural Centre) and the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), both of which are funded by the taxpayer through a "tax-back" scheme named Gift Aid, in which charities can claim the 20% basic rate tax back on every pound donated.

Mohammad Al Arifi has repeatedly spoken at Al Muntada's annual conference, "Month of Mercy;" Haitham Al Haddad was the former Imam of the Al Muntada mosque and still speaks at the charity's conferences, and Muhammad Al Muqri has taught weekly lessons at the Al Muntada Mosque.

The Al Muntada Trust claims to provide charitable aid across the world. It also runs two schools in the UK. Every year, the Al Muntada Trust runs a conference named "Month of Mercy," which features some of the most outspoken preachers of this kind from across Europe and the Middle East. Nigerian media has accused Al Muntada of direct links to Nigeria's Al-Qaeda affiliate, the terrorist organization Boko Haram.

Boko Haram recently made headlines after kidnapping 276 schoolgirls and murdering up to 300 people. Emmanuel Ogebe, a Nigerian human rights lawyer, told US Congress that "Boko Haram's funding has been traced to … [the] Al Muntada Trust." Moreover, according to the Jamestown Foundation, Al Muntada is "associated with the official Saudi state charitable and da'wa institutions, the Muslim World League (MWL), World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and Al Haramain Islamic Foundation. All these groups are alleged by American and international investigators to be terror-financing bodies."

Meanwhile, the other Al Manar speaker, Abu Usamah ad-Dhahabi, is an Imam in Birmingham at the Green Lane Mosque, which jointly organizes courses with the iERA. The Al Manar Centre itself, in fact, frequently runs courses with the iERA, and has provided a platform for iERA staff on multiple occasions.

The iERA is an extreme Islamist "da'wah" [proselytization] group, which tours hate preachers around Britain. Three iERA speakers have been banned from entering Britain: Bilal Philips, described by the U.S. an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Zakir Naik, banned from the UK for saying that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," and Hussein Yee, who openly preaches hatred against Jews, and claims that Jews in America were "happy" when the Twin Towers fell.

Both the Al Muntada Trust and the iERA have worked together in the past to organize a conference featuring extremist preachers, with the support of groups such as the World Association of Muslim Youth, a Saudi youth organization that US government agencies and officials claim has funded terrorism in places such as Bosnia and Israel, and which publishes and distributes anti-Shia and anti-Semitic publications.

Some of these conferences have also included British parliamentarians, such as Jeremy Corbyn MP. Stephen Timms MP, another example, is a former Treasury Minister who has spoken at Al Muntada fundraising events, alongside shadow Justice Minister Andrew Slaughter MP, Conservative Peer Lord Sheikh, and former deputy mayor of London, Richard Barnes.

That these Salafi groups are providing the preachers at institutions where young British Muslims are radicalized should not be ignored. Although most of these extremist preachers are residents of Britain and therefore cannot be banned from the country, there are other steps the British government could take, such as -- with Al Manar Centre, Al Muntada and the iERA -- granting greater statutory powers that would allow the Charity Commission to strip the organizations of their charitable status.

The failure of the British government to take proactive steps to counter these Islamist ambitions, especially when they are couched as charitable endeavors, looks set to produce many more Muthana brothers -- some who will die on the battlefields in Syria and Iraq, and others who will return to Britain to wreak havoc there.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2015, 06:05 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Palestinians' EU-Funded Campaign Against Israel

The Palestinians' EU-Funded Campaign Against Israel
by Khaled Abu Toameh

February 16, 2015

While Abbas was talking in Stockholm about his intentions to revive the peace talks with Israel, leaders of his Fatah faction in the West Bank were sending a completely different message to the Palestinians. They were not talking about any peace process with Israel. They were making statements that would only radicalize Palestinians and give them reason to hate Israel even more. They are leading their people toward eternal confrontation, and not reconciliation, with Israel.

The EU is not helping advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to the anti-Israel campaign, and is generously funding it through dozens of NGOs in the Palestinian territories.

Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank is trying to divert attention from its problems at home by further inciting Palestinians and the international community against Israel.

In recent weeks, Fatah gunmen and Palestinian Authority [PA] policemen have been clashing almost on a daily basis in the Balata and Jenin refugee camps in the northern West Bank. Meanwhile, Fatah leaders have been busy badmouthing each other -- a sign of deepening divisions among the faction's top brass.

This incitement, which includes reviving the old disproven claim that Israel was behind the 2004 death of Yasser Arafat and calls for boycotting Israeli companies, is playing into the hands of Hamas and other Palestinians who are opposed to any peace process with Israelis.

During his recent visit to Sweden, Abbas announced that he would work to revive the peace talks with Israel. But while Abbas was talking in Stockholm about his intention to resume peace talks, leaders of his Fatah faction in the West Bank were sending a completely different message to Palestinians.

Unlike Abbas, these leaders were not talking about any peace process with Israel. Instead, they were making statements that would only radicalize Palestinians and give them reason to hate Israel even more.

Not surprisingly, the voices of the Fatah leaders, closely associated with the Palestinian Authority president, did not reach the government officials in Sweden, who went out of their way to roll out the red carpet for Abbas.

So while Abbas was inaugurating the Palestinian Embassy in central Stockholm, the first-ever Palestinian embassy in Western Europe, his officials held a press conference in Ramallah to announce a boycott of Israeli companies.

At the press conference, Mahmoud Aloul, a senior Fatah official, announced a new campaign to boycott products made by six Israeli food companies. Aloul warned Palestinian shopkeepers to clear their shelves of the Israeli products within two weeks. "Activists of all Palestinian factions will be touring the territories to confiscate the products after the two-week deadline," he said.

The latest Fatah-led campaign is not the first of its kind. In the past, Fatah activists in the West Bank have played a major role in the "anti-normalization" campaign, aimed at foiling any meetings between Palestinians and Israelis. The Fatah activists are even opposed to soccer matches between Israeli and Palestinian children and meetings that bring together journalists from both sides.

Further, while Abbas held talks in Brussels this week with European Union leaders, including European Parliament President Martin Schultz, about ways of reviving the peace process with Israel, another senior Fatah official repeated the fabricated charge that Israel was behind the "poisoning" of Yasser Arafat.

EU leaders, such as European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker (right), who met with Mahmoud Abbas (left) last week, are either unaware of anti-Israel incitement by his Fatah faction or simply prefer to bury their heads in the sand. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Tawfik Tirawi, member of the Fatah Central Committee and former commander of the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service in the West Bank, made the "dramatic revelation" during an interview with a Palestinian TV station in Bethlehem.

According to Tirawi, who heads the Palestinian commission of inquiry into Arafat's death, "We have managed to identify the person who put the poison [in Arafat's food]. We just need some time to confirm our investigations. But of course we know that Israel was behind the assassination operation. But we are searching for the person who was directly involved."

Tirawi did not reveal the identity of the person allegedly involved in the death of Arafat. Nor did he provide any evidence that Israel was behind the alleged assassination.

Yet by repeating the claim that Israel was behind the death of Arafat, the top Fatah official is simply fuelling more hatred against Israel.

How does such an unfounded accusation against Israel contribute to Abbas's reported talk about renewing the peace process? And how do calls for boycotting Israelis and their products pave the way for peace and coexistence?

These are only two recent examples of how Abbas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority are leading their people toward eternal confrontation, and not reconciliation, with Israel.

Add to this the daily threats by Abbas and the PA leadership to file "war crimes" charges against Israelis with the International Criminal Court. Once you state that your goal is to punish and boycott Israel, it becomes extremely difficult to talk about any peace process in the future.

Abbas and his "moderate" Fatah faction have not only failed to prepare their people for peace with Israel; they continue to whip up anti-Israel sentiment among Palestinians and other Arabs. If Abbas and Fatah have already determined that many Israelis are "war criminals" who also poisoned Yasser Arafat, how can they ever return to any negotiating table with Israel? How will they then justify to their people that they agreed to resume peace talks with "war criminals?"

Fatah's anti-Israel incitement and campaign to delegitimize and isolate Israel has made it unsafe even for Palestinian children to play soccer with Israelis. Under the current circumstances, it has also become dangerous for Israeli peace activists to visit Ramallah and meet Palestinian colleagues.

The EU leaders who met with Abbas last week are either unaware of the anti-Israel incitement by his Fatah faction or simply prefer to bury their heads in the sand. In both cases, the EU is not helping advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to this anti-Israel campaign, and is generously funding it through dozens of NGOs in the Palestinian territories.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 07:11 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation "Gangster Islam" in Europe

"Gangster Islam" in Europe

Old 07-27-2016, 05:32 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Europe’s Glaring Hypocrisy on Terror and Israel

Adopting measures that—when used by Israel—it vilifies.
By P. David Hornik

Western Europe is now being hit by a wave of terror. Israel has expressed sympathy to the governments and peoples, and is helping or has offered to help the hardest-hit countries—France, Germany, and Belgium—fight the terror.

It has been different when terror has pounded Israel. Even during the five-year onslaught known as the Second Intifada (2000-2005), Europe was sharply critical of Israel and denounced all its terror-fighting methods as immoral.

The contrast is particularly striking in light of some disparities. From the Charlie Hebdo attack on January 7, 2015 to Tuesday’s attack in a church, 239 have been killed in France (pop. 67 million). In the Brussels bombings on March 22 this year, 32 were killed in Belgium (pop. 11 million). Since September 15, 2015, terror attacks (counting the Munich shooting late last week) have killed 15 in Germany (pop. 82 million).

During the five years of the Second Intifada, however, 1000 were killed in Israel (current pop. 8.5 million; even smaller then)—a much higher rate even than France has endured since the start of 2015.

Yet, in the course of those intifada years—and since then as well, including, of course, the Gaza wars—Europe’s criticism of Israel’s fight against terror has been unremitting.

The irony is deepened by the fact that some of the Israeli measures that Europe has most fiercely condemned are now used routinely by European countries themselves—without, of course, having to put up with criticism from Israel or anyone else.

For instance, there was once a time when targeted killings—if practiced by Israel—stirred world outrage. On April 17, 2004, with the Second Intifada still seething, an Israeli airstrike killed Hamas terror master Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi in Gaza.

Condemnations followed like clockwork ( From the European direction, they were voiced, among others, by then-EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, then-Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini, and then-British foreign minister Jack Straw, who said: “The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive.” Only a U.S. veto saved Israel from UN Security Council censure for the killing.

Today, of course, drone strikes on terrorists by the U.S. and European countries are so routine that they can hardly compete for attention with weather forecasts. On November 26, 2015, the Daily Mail reported ( that “British drone strikes have killed 305 ISIS targets in the last year….”

Even when, during the Second Intifada, Israel took the passive measure of building a fence to try to keep out suicide bombers and other terrorists, it came under harsh rebuke.

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice at The Hague issued an advisory opinion calling the fence illegal ( and demanding that it be torn down—terror or no terror.

Of the 15 countries represented on the court, only the U.S. voted against the opinion; all five European countries—the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Slovakia—voted in favor.

Almost 12 years later, on January 7, 2016, The Economist reported ( that “Europe will soon have more physical barriers on its national borders than it did during the Cold War.” In recent years Hungary, Sweden, Greece, and Bulgaria have built fences aimed at keeping out mostly-Muslim migrants deemed potentially dangerous. There are, of course, no convocations of the International Court of Justice—and no condemnations by Israel.

Even Israeli checkpoints have been a human rights cause célèbre. True, they inconvenience Palestinians who just want to get from one place to another; but their purpose is to weed out terrorists and prevent deadly attacks.

Yet, on July 9, 2008, Haaretz reported ( that, typically, “The European Union, France and Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair [had] criticized Israel’s checkpoints in the West Bank and blockade of Gaza as preventing an economic recovery there….”

Seemingly, by then, it should have been clear to these European parties that, even if such Israeli measures had deleterious economic effects, there were very serious reasons why they were in place. But there was no sign of such awareness.

Yet somewhat over seven years later, France—always one of Israel’s most severe critics—reacted to terror with such a dense network of border checkpoints that, The Telegraph reported (, “the future of Europe’s Schengen free travel zone was cast into doubt.”

Although, for now, the focus of Islamic terror has shifted from Israel to Western Europe, Israel’s situation remains precarious. With ISIS in Sinai, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terror groups in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and a mix of Sunni terror groups, Hizballah, and Iranian militias in Syria, another armed conflict between Israel and terrorists is only a matter of time.

And when the time comes, in light of all that has happened since the days of the Second Intifada, will Israel be able to count on Europe to give it support instead of reflexive criticism and pressures to lay down its arms?

Despite all, only the very naïve could think so.

Last edited by Paparock; 07-27-2016 at 05:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum