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 > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4001  
Old 03-26-2016, 03:59 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Mahr: Obama Pulling Islam Numbers 'Out of His Ass'

Maher: Obama’s Pulling His Numbers on Islam ‘Right Out of His A**,’ ‘It’s Not One Small Slice’ That Are Dangerous
by IAN HANCHETT



http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...are-dangerous/


HBO host Bill Maher argued that “it’s not one small slice” of Muslims who hold extremist beliefs, and President Obama’s claims to the contrary are pulled “right out of his a**” on Friday’s “Real Time.”

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) said, “ISIS is a narrow, and far extreme sect of the wide band of the Muslim religion, the Islamic religion, to — and this gets back probably to your previous conversation, and the point you’ve been making a lot, I think, on this show, is, why not say ‘Islamic terrorism?’ However, we’ve got a huge number of moderate Muslims, not just in this country, but elsewhere, who don’t like that term, and words matter. And so why not call it, if we want to ally ourselves with moderate Muslims, why not use the language they’re suggesting we use, which is jihadism, and not broad brush an entire religion?”

Maher responded, “But think of what you’re saying. You’re that somehow these folks are so combustible, that if we use the wrong word, we’re going to nudge over them into strapping on a suicide vest? Then what does that say about the culture?” Granholm disagreed with this characterization, and wondered, “But what does it say about us, that we refuse to listen to the terms that they would like to be referred by?”

Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer then stated, “Islamic terrorism is a problem, and a unique problem, and there are aspects of the religion that make it a unique problem, willing to say that. But I also am very sympathetic and empathetic to President Obama, when he knows that’s true as well, and he refuses to use it, because he understands that the overwhelming pull of the United States is to get us more sucked into wars we don’t have answers for, and the more sucked in we get, the more problematic, the more painful, the more cost in resources, and in human lives.” Maher agreed with this point, and with Obama’s stance on the issue.

Granholm re-iterated her point that tagging all Muslims with the actions of a “small slice” is wrong. Maher countered, “But it’s not one small slice. You know, everybody talks about this, like there are no numbers. Obama said it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9% of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for, order, peace, prosperity. I love the president, but he just pulled that number right out of his a**. There are numbers. We had a guest on a couple of weeks ago, Raheel Raza. … She goes by the numbers. That’s what her video was called. 53% of the population of 39 Muslim countries that were surveyed want, Sharia Law. sharia law, death for leaving Islam, death for insulting the prophet, or the Koran, stoning a woman to death for adultery, amputation for theft, whipping for missing Friday prayers ,or drinking alcohol. The numbers vary from country to country, but this idea that it’s just this small problem, the reason why this is a unique problem, why I was imploring [Sen.] Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) to say that, is because it is distinct a threat based on the size. The New York Times says there are 5,000 militant Islamic groups in the world, armies, like Boko Haram, and ISIS, and the Taliban, and al Qaeda, intent — they want to get nuclear weapons, support from the local population. I’m not saying most people want to commit terrorist acts, I’m saying they have illiberal ideas, that are sometimes in line with what the terrorists believe, and recent events.”

Slate columnist Reihan Salam responded that denying this is “very foolish and dangerous,” “when you polarize, when you say that being a Muslim is this, it means these things, you make it more significant for people who are on the fence.”

Granholm again stated that Maher using a broad brush would offend moderate Muslims, to which Maher said he was simply citing facts. Bremmer remarked, “I think they should be more offended by the incompetence of their leaders than they should by the fact that US says Islam or not. I really do. You can’t bomb these guys into submission.”

Maher concluded, “This would get them more on our side. You know, we don’t want to alienate the people who believe in our values. We seem to be always getting out of our way to defend the people who don’t believe in our values.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...are-dangerous/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-26-2016 at 04:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4002  
Old 03-26-2016, 05:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Angry Once again, Obama Skips Over A Few Important Details.

APOLOGISTS FOR ISLAM AND HISTORY
Once again, Obama skips over a few important details
.
By Hugh Fitzgerald




http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2622...ugh-fitzgerald


Apologists for Islam are a varied bunch – some reveal ignorance, others deploy deliberate taqiyya – but all play fast and loose with history.

Of the groups listed by author above which does Obama fall in? Paparock

Here are three examples:

Karen Armstrong on the Expulsion of the Moors

In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protégé of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.

In 1492, “the Catholic monarchs conquered Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe.” What then should we call all those lands in southern and eastern Europe that the Ottomans were at that very moment busy conquering and seizing, including Constantinople, the richest, most populous, most important city in all of Christendom for 800 years (taken by the Turks on a Tuesday – May 29, 1453), and the Balkans (including the then-vast Serbian lands)? And what are modern-day Albania, Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria? The Ottomans continued to press northward and westward, later seizing much of Hungary and threatening Vienna twice. Were these not parts of Europe, and was not a good deal of Europe, including what had been its most important city for a millennium, Constantinople, firmly in Muslim hands before Granada fell – and after?

But it would not do to remind readers that while the Muslim invaders and conquerors of Spain lost their last “stronghold” in Granada, other Muslim invaders and conquerors were busy at the other end of Europe, seizing lands and subjugating the native populations to the devshirme (the forced levy of Christian children) as well as to the jizya (the tax on non-Muslims) and all the other disabilities that, wherever Muslims conquered, were imposed, as part of a clearly elaborated system, and not merely the whim a ruler, on all non-Muslims.

Now having begun with that year 1492, Armstrong has a bit of a problem. It was that year that Jews were forced to be baptized or to leave. But though Granada had fallen, nothing then happened to the Muslims. In fact, they were treated with the same gentleness that all the Mudejares (Spanish Muslims) who had been defeated, in successive campaigns, were always treated by the Christian victors. Henry Lea, the pioneering historian of the Inquisition, who was hardly looking for ways to exculpate Christianity, describes the generosity with which the defeated Muslims were treated in Granada, and after the prior victories:

It was the Jews against whom was directed the growing intolerance of the fifteenth century and, in the massacres that occurred, there appears to have been no hostility manifested against the Mudéjares. When Alfonso de Borja, Archbishop of Valencia (afterwards Calixtus III), supported by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, urged their [the Mudejars] expulsion on Juan II of Aragon, although he appointed a term for their exile, he reconsidered the matter and left them undisturbed. So when, in 1480, Isabella ordered the expulsion from Andalusia of all Jews who refused baptism and when, in 1486, Ferdinand did the same in Aragon, they both respected the old capitulations and left the Mudéjares alone. The time-honored policy was followed in the conquest of Granada, and nothing could be more liberal than the terms conceded to the cities and districts that surrendered. The final capitulation of the city of Granada was a solemn agreement, signed November 25, 1491, in which Ferdinand and Isabella, for themselves, for their son the Infante Juan and for all their successors, received the Moors of all places that should come into the agreement as vassals and natural subjects under the royal protection, and as such to be honored and respected. Religion, property, freedom to trade, laws and customs were all guaranteed, and even renegades from Christianity among them were not to be maltreated, while Christian women marrying Moors were free to choose their religion. For three years, those desiring expatriation were to be transported to Barbary at the royal expense, and refugees in Barbary were allowed to return. When, after the execution of this agreement, the Moors, with not unnatural distrust, wanted further guarantees, the sovereigns made a solemn declaration in which they swore by God that all Moors should have full liberty to work on their lands, or to go wherever they desired through the kingdoms, and to maintain their mosques and religious observances as heretofore, while those who desired to emigrate to Barbary could sell their property and depart.

It was not until 1502, after difficulties ensued between Spanish authorities, including the famous Cardinal Ximenes (he of the Complutensian Polyglot), and the Muslims (Mudejares) that they were given the choice of expulsion or conversion. And a great many of them pretended to convert, and remained in Spain – far more Muslims were capable of engaging in dissimulation of their faith than were the hapless Jews, who were expelled, in 1492, virtually overnight. It was much later, not until the late 16th century, under Philip II, that the last of the Muslims (“Moors”) in Spain were finally expelled, having before that risen in revolt more than once, and been subject to several incomplete expulsions.

Armstrong manages to smuggle in that first, rather ineffective expulsion of 1502: “later [i.e. in a different year altogether] Muslims were given the choice of Christianity or exile.” She does not add, and may not know, that Muslims in Spain after the fall of Granada in 1492 were not under any danger of expulsion, and it was only when they showed signs of refusing to integrate as asked (and it was assumed that over time they would share the Christian faith, though at first nothing was done to demand such a sign) that they were presented with the choice of expulsion or conversion. She may not know, either, that Muslims in a Spain now everywhere ruled by Christians, asked members of the ulema in North Africa (in present-day Morocco) to determine whether under Islamic law they might continue to live in Spain under non-Muslim rule. They were told that it was not licit, that it was important for them not to be ruled by non-Muslims, and that they must, therefore, return to the Muslim-ruled lands of North Africa. Such details provide a rather different slant on what Karen Armstrong offers – she takes the real tragedy, the overnight expulsion of the hapless and inoffensive Jews, and attempts to make the reader think that the Muslims were equally inoffensive, equally harmless, and also treated with equal ferocity, as the Jews. But they were not equally inoffensive, not equally harmless, and not treated with equal ferocity. The danger of a military uprising by the Mudejares, possibly helped by Muslims from North Africa, was real, while Jews never were militarily powerful enough to pose a similar threat.

First, in 1492, comes the fall of Granada. Then, second in time, and certainly in Karen Armstrong’s indignation, came the expulsion of the Jews: “In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between conversion and exile.” Note how that “also” is dropped in, as if the real event, the main event, was the nonexistent (in 1492) expulsion of the Moors, which she had taken care to slip into her discussion of the Fall of Granada, so that she could diminish the significance of the expulsion of the Jews with that afterthoughtish “also.”

But the Muslims were invaders and conquerors, who had been resisted for 700 years of the Reconquista, and when expelled, not all at once as were the Jews, they simple went across the Straits of Gibraltar from whence they had originally come, to live again among fellow Muslims, under Muslim rule. Armstrong never says that. Nor does she point out, as she would if she were trying to compare the quite different treatments of Jews and Muslims, that the Jews of Spain never invaded, never conquered, never represented a threat to the political or social order of Christian Spain. And when they were expelled, they were not to find refuge, like the Muslims, in lands ruled by coreligionists, but again, to be scattered, both to Ottoman domains and to Christian ones, to Salonika or Amsterdam, to be treated indifferently, or kindly, or with contumely, or worse.

Under Muslim rule, despite their sometimes horrendous treatment, as recorded by Maimonides in his “Epistle to the Yemen” (Maimonides fled Islamic Spain and reported to his coreligionists in the Yemen), the Jews managed to make important cultural contributions as translators (along with Christians), as physicians, and as poets (the name Judah Halevi comes to mind). They were perfectly willing to live in Spain under Christian rule. They posed no military or political threat, in contradistinction to the Muslims. They did nothing to deserve their expulsion. But Karen Armstrong has sympathy for the Jews only insofar as that sympathy can be transferred to the real objects of her pity, the Muslims, and she will do nothing to cause readers to recognize the difference in the two cases, that of the Jews one of clear mistreatment, that of the Muslims a matter of geopolitical prudence. It took a full decade for the Spanish rulers and clerics to realize that the Muslims, though conquered, were not, as had been hoped, eventually going to convert to the Christian faith, and the signs they gave of continued insubmission could only disturb the Christian monarchs. It had taken 500 years for the Reconquista. Why should the Spanish Christians, now that they had been militarily victorious everywhere on the Iberian Peninsula, need to worry that the Muslims might rise in revolt when they could remove the problem once and for all?

And such local Muslim revolts did take place in Spain in the sixteenth century, but it was not until the Morisco revolt of the Alpujarras in Granada in 1568 that official attitudes hardened. That war lasted until 1570; at the end of it, Grenadan Moriscos were relocated to the interior, and scattered among “Old Christians,” that is, people who were not descended from Jewish or Muslim converts to Islam, and, it was assumed, were the most trustworthy Christians of them all.

But still there were worries about the failure of hundreds of thousands of Moriscos to assimilate, and the fear that they might be in contact with Barbary pirates or the Ottomans (or even Protestants!) led the Spanish monarch in 1609 to order the expulsion of the last remaining Moriscos.

Both Jews and Moors were expelled from Spain, but not on the same date, and not at all in the same way. However determined Armstrong may be to convince us (most unconvincingly) that these were identical historical events, both prompted in her modish view by the demonization of “the Other” (a phenomenon which apparently results from the peculiar psychic deficiency of Christian Europe), they were not identical. The Moors were treated by Spanish officials much more leniently than the Jews, even though they were a greater geopolitical threat, with powerful coreligionists just across the Strait of Gibraltar in North Africa, than were the Jews, who posed no threat whatsoever. The phrase “the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors in 1492” does violence to the truth, but furthers Armstrong’s desire to win sympathy for Muslims.

Armstrong has been retelling, in her inimitable fashion, the story of European Christendom’s relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and as innocent victims, likened misleadingly to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era, a veritable paradise of convivencia. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but to make Europeans feel ashamed of themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not, pace Armstrong, to settle down.

Barack Obama on Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner” and Muslims In America

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ., which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

And Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Muslim invention, and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or bida, is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunky who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

When Obama quotes that single phrase from John Adams, made at the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat from the marauding Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean that attacked Christian shipping at will (and when America became independent, it could no longer count on the Royal Navy to protect its ships), he wants us to think that our second president was approving of Islam. But that is to misinterpret his statement, clearly meant to be taken to have this meaning: we in the United States, have a priori nothing against Islam. Rhetoric designed to diplomatically please. But based on his subsequent experiences with the North African Muslims, including his experiences with them after various treaties were made and then broken, Adams came to a different and negative view of Islam, a view that was shared by all those Americans who, whether diplomats or seized seamen, had any direct dealings with Muslims. America’s first encounter with Muslims was that with the Barbary Pirates, from Morocco to Algiers to Tunis to Tripoli, and their behavior rendered Adams’s initial “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” null and void. And it was not John Adams himself, but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who studied Islam in depth, and it was he to whom Obama ought to have turned to find out more about Islam. For he would have found, among other piercing and accurate remarks by J. Q. Adams, the following:

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Isn’t it amazing that not a single American official — and not just Obama — has ever alluded to the study of Islam that one of our most illustrious presidents produced?

Again, Obama, with a jumble of Jefferson, Ellison, and Holy Koran:

And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

When Obama notes that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his “personal” library, he is subtly implying that Jefferson approved of its contents. Keith Ellison did much the same when he ostentatiously used that very copy of the Qur’an for his own swearing-in as the first Muslim Congressman. But Jefferson, a curious and cultivated man, with a large library, had a copy of the Qur’an for the same reason you or I might possess a copy, that is, simply to find out what was in it. And we might note in passing that it was not the “Holy Koran” that Jefferson possessed and Ellison borrowed, but an English translation by George Sale of the “Koran.” According to Muslims, the epithet “Holy” can only be attached to a Koran written and read in the original Arabic. White House, for the next time, take note.

There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam once he had studied it, or had had dealings with Muslims or had travelled to their countries. Look high, look low, consult whatever records you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that an American President would someday praise Islam to the skies in Obama’s fulsome manner would have astounded them all.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance.

Also sprach Obama. But Islam is based on an uncompromising division of humanity into Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Unbelievers, and Unbelievers, at best, can be allowed to live in a Muslim polity — be “tolerated” — only if they accept a position of permanent and humiliating inferiority. It would be fascinating if Obama could name even one example of Islam demonstrating through words and deeds “the possibilities of religious tolerance.”

But let’s return to Obama’s assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House, way back in 1805.

Here is the background to that meal in 1805 which not Jefferson, but Obama, calls an “Iftar Dinner”:

In the Mediterranean, American ships, now deprived of the protection formerly offered by the Royal Navy, suffered constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates acting alone but were officially encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey. Under Jefferson, America took a more aggressive line:

Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute.

The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli [Sidi Soliman Mellimelli] to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.

Mellimelli was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States” — there was no official exchange of ambassadors – but a temporary envoy with a single limited task: to get an agreement that would set free the Tunisian vessels and come to an agreement about future payment – if any — of tribute by, or to Tripoli. At the end of six months, that envoy was to return home.

The Muslim envoy made some unexpected personal demands in Washington:

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.

Some readers will no doubt be reminded by this request for “concubines” of how the State Department has supplied female companions to much more recent Arab visitors, including the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Mellimelli proved to be the exotic cynosure of all eyes, with his American hosts not really understanding some of his reactions, as his “surprise” at the “social freedom women enjoyed in America” and his belief that only Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were acceptable “prophets” to follow, for they lacked the understanding of Islam that would have explained such reactions:

Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.

Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Spirit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”

So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab including, very likely, that for the requested “concubines.” He cut a dashing figure:

The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.

Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.


During the time Mellimelli was here, Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. The dinner was not meant to be an “Iftar dinner” but just a dinner, albeit at the White House; it was originally set for three thirty in the afternoon (our founding fathers dined early in the pre-Edison days of their existence). Mellimelli said he could not come at that appointed hour of three thirty p.m., but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else, he did not see himself as offering an “Iftar Dinner,” and there are no records to hint that he did. Barack Obama, 200 years later, is trying to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests. But he is misrepresenting American history to Americans, including schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, in newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably depict Islam, and present it as so integral a part of American life.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks a few days before at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition of Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, did not think he was providing what he thought of as an “Iftar Dinner,” but simply a dinner, at a time his guest requested. And to describe as a “White House tradition” and the first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically,” has absolutely no basis in fact.

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of Iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their orthodox understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims rely on for authority. It was President George W. Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did what he set out to do, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner just a month after the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is that, ever since 2001, we have had Iftar dinner after Iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our learned Presidents who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — unless we were to count as an “Iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his exotic guest.

George W. Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” He and Obama agree on that. And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the long “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, referred to, began. It’s all of fourteen years old now, having survived and thrived through the differently-disastrous presidencies of Bush and of Obama.

Craig Considine on Religious Pluralism and Civic Rights in a “Muslim Nation”: An Analysis of Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with Christians

According to The Daily Mail article about him (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ms-expert.html), Craig Considine is a “professor,” but of what is not specified. This might lead an unsuspecting reader to conclude that his “professorship” must surely be in the field about which he now publishes in the popular press — to wit, the history of early Islam. How surprising, then, to discover that his doctoral thesis, completed just last year, is not about the history of early Islam, but about Pakistani immigrants in the West: “Family, Religion, and Identity in the Pakistani Diaspora: A Case Study of Young Pakistani Men in Dublin and Boston,” a subject having nothing whatever to do with covenants supposedly entered into by Muhammad with Christians before 632 A.D. And he turns out to be not a professor of Islamic studies, but a lean lecturer in sociology.

Considine promises readers (http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/7/2/15) of this “covenants with Christians” paper that he will “share….what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam. Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for[sic] minorities to have protection during times of strife.” In other words, we are about to discover a Muhammad-we-hardly-knew-ye kind of Muhammad, an interfaith-healing Muhammad, whose fondest desire is to protect freedom of religion and to be a “champion of human rights.”

And then begins his magical-mystery-tour through early Islam. Considine starts by assuming the historical truth of a document which Muhammad purportedly made with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai:

Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egypt, Muhammad called on Muslims to respect Christian judges and churches, and for no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister. Through this agreement, Muhammad made it clear that Islam, as a political and philosophical way of life, respected and protected Christians.

All very fine, were there sufficient evidence to support any of it, but as Robert Spencer showed in a devastating review, this “covenant” must surely be a forgery, very likely made by the monks themselves, in order to ensure their good treatment by Muslims on the invoked authority of Muhammad.

Here’s Spencer (https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/0...of-muhammad/):

The document to which Considine is referring, the Achtiname, is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command for, as Considine puts it, “no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister”? Did Muhammad draw up this document because he foresaw the Muslim invasion of Egypt? There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).

The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims.

Considine doesn’t mention any of the questions about the Achtiname’s authenticity. Instead, he just piles on more:

Similarly, in the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.”

Spencer:

Here again, both the Treaty of Maqnah and the Constitution of Medina are of doubtful authenticity. The Constitution is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Considine, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”

What responsibility did Considine have to his readers? He had at least to recognize that Western scholars of Islam have known for a long time about all four the covenants he dealt with in his paper (Spencer discussed three of them):

Considine said documents have been located in obscure monasteries around the world and books that have been out of print for centuries.

It almost sounds as if he, Craig Considine, lecturer in sociology, had located them himself and been responsible for their recent unearthing.

Considine had a responsibility to present the arguments impugning the authenticity of the documents and to attempt to refute them. He does not have to accept the arguments, but surely he owes readers a duty to discuss thoroughly the issue of authenticity.He does do some of this, but not nearly enough. He surely knew what Spencer wrote, for example, about the problems with the dating of the Achtiname, a document which would have had to have been written before Muhammad’s death in 632 A.D., which makes provisions for the good treatment of Egypt’s Christians by Muslims. Such provisions would only be needed after a Muslim invasion, and the Muslim invasion of Egypt did not take place until 639. That’s only one example of hysteron-proteron, or cart-before-horseness, in Considine’s chronology.

He preens himself on his own learnedness, and presumes to pass judgment on the scholarship of others. Yet he writes about the historian and diplomat Paul Ricaut: “It is also worth pointing out that he [Ricaut] himself used the phrase ‘On dit’, which is Latin for ‘It is alleged'” — thereby unwittingly making us aware that he, Considine, is at home in neither Latin nor French, for “on dit” is not Latin, but one of the commonest of French phrases, meaning “it is said” (the Latin would be “dicitur”), rather than the doubt-casting “it is alleged.”

Considine’s paper is based almost entirely on one source, “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad” by John Andrew Morrow, and like Morrow, Considine presents not so much an overlooked historical truth as a forlorn hope that Islam could be other than it is, based on these “covenants” of doubtful authenticity. The goal may be laudable – convincing Muslims to be kinder to non-Muslims, and for that both Considine and Morrow know you need to ground your appeal not on human decency but on Muhammad’s authority – but the evidence adduced for such covenants remains unconvincing. As Robert Hunt wrote in a review of Morrow’s book (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberth...et-muhammad/):

these documents [the covenants] represent not the aspirations of the Prophet Muhammad, but of those religious minorities who fell under the rule of his successors.

And, continues Hunt, “what are the chances that any Muslim, including those who endorse this book [or Considine’s paper], will give these documents, completely unattested by proper isnad, the status of even the weakest hadith? None. So they will remain to the Muslim community historical curiosities with no religious authority whatsoever.”

At his website, Craig Considine tells the world about himself: “My passions include thinking, teaching, writing, speaking, traveling, and fostering peace.” Perhaps his thinking has been a bit too wishful, and that peace he fondly fosters too much a peace that passeth understanding.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2622...ugh-fitzgerald
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-26-2016 at 05:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4003  
Old 03-26-2016, 06:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Obama Admin Engaged in Secret Talks to Pay Iran Nearly $2 Billion

Obama Admin Engaged in Secret Talks to Pay Iran Nearly $2 Billion
Officials admit delays in informing Congress, say more payments to come
BY: Adam Kredo



http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...ran-2-billion/


The Obama administration has spent three years engaged in secret talks with Iran that resulted in the payment of nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to the Islamic Republic, with more payouts likely to come in the future, according to a recent letter issued by the State Department and obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.

The administration’s disclosure came in response to an inquiry launched in January by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), who was seeking further information about the Obama administration’s payment of $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to Iran, which many viewed as a “ransom payment” for Iran’s release that month of several U.S. hostages.

The administration’s official response to Pompeo was sent earlier this week, just days after a Free Beacon report detailing a months-long State Department effort to stall the lawmaker’s inquiry.

“We apologize for the delay in responding,” Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs, states in the letter’s opening.

Obama administration officials first began talks to settle a number of outstanding legal claims leveled against the United States by Iran in 2014. The administration predicts that more taxpayer-funded payments are likely to be granted to the Islamic Republic in the future, according to the letter.

Frifield in her letter goes on to defend the $1.7 billion payment to Iran and discloses that the administration is open to providing Tehran with more money if it is willing to settle these decades-old legal disputes with the United States.

“We are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer,” the State Department said.

Iran’s legal row with the United States surrounds the breakdown of a massive arms deal that was nixed in the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, which resulted in the capture of the U.S. embassy and American personnel stationed there.

Many of these claims remain unsettled and are still being litigated by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at the Hague.

The Obama administration has been working behind the scenes since at least 2014 to reach settlement agreements with Iran to avoid court decisions, according to the letter, which identifies at least two separate discussions held in June 2014 and January 2015.

The administration anticipates that more settlements will come, meaning that the United States will likely be forced to pay Iran via a taxpayer legal fund operated by the Treasury Department.

“The United States is continuing to vigorously litigate these claims at the Tribunal, but is also open to discussing further settlements of claims with Iran, as we have done throughout the life of the Tribunal, with the aim of resolving them in furtherance of U.S. interests,” the letter states.

Iran’s “fact-intensive claims involve over 1,000 separate contracts between Iran and the United States,” according to the letter, which explains that January’s $1.7 billion payment settled just one of many outstanding disputes.

The Obama administration fails to directly address Pompeo’s questions seeking to determine if the legal settlement was finalized as part of an incentive package meant to motivate Tehran to free imprisoned Americans.

“It would not be in the interest of the United States to discuss further details of the settlement of these claims in an unclassified letter due to the ongoing litigation at the Tribunal,” the State Department writes. “However, we would be prepared to provide a closed briefing on such issues if it would be useful to there.”

“When Iran releases American hostages, and then, on that same day, President Obama announces he is paying Iran $1.7 billion, Congress of course has to ask the hard questions,” said one source familiar with the investigation. “And when the Obama administration admits that over $1 billion in taxpayer money is going to the Iranian regime, Congress is obligated to respond. The State Department has ducked and dodged–providing a history lesson on international tribunals, focused on actions decades ago, instead of addressing dangerous misdeeds that were potentially just committed. That is suspicious.”

Under the specific terms of January’s settlement, Iran was to be paid a $400 million balance and an additional $1.3 billion in interest from a taxpayer fund maintained by the Treasury Department, a State Department official confirmed to the Free Beacon at the time.

That settlement—along with additional settlements—was reached outside of the recently implemented nuclear deal and is separate from the $150 billion in unfrozen cash assets the United States is obligated to give to Iran under that agreement, the official said.

The $1.7 billion payment was announced just prior to the release of five U.S. prisoners who had been held in Iran, sparking accusations that the deal is tantamount to a ransom payment.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...ran-2-billion/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4004  
Old 03-26-2016, 06:48 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Question How Many More Americans Must Die Before America Wakes UP?

How Many More Americans Must Die From Islamist Attacks Before America Wakes UP?


I'm serious how many more Americans must die before America 'Wakes UP"? We have already lost more in one single attack than died at Pearl Harbor and atarted WWII and that has NOT done it. At least half the country if not more have gone back to sleep or are in denial so how many more dead is it going to take? 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, in a single attack at what level will modern Americans CARE? Will it take a "dirty bomb" or a "chemical bomb" causing thousands of dead including children to get Americans' attention and demand action not just talk? Maybe it will take the electrical grid taken out for a month over the Northest or California to get everyones' attention. Why is it neither the population or those in authority that never really take threats seriously until the threats are latched firmly on their "collective asses" as they like to say today before they decide to act? Have these people never heard that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Try preventing something BEFORE it happens you "educated idiots", your agendas be damned! Perhaps it is time to bring back some old traditions like 'Tar and Feathering' those that refuse to honor their oaths of office and giving them a free ride out of town!

I don't care if the are Republican or Democrats! Take action or pay the price and a pox on both your houses if you do not! You are there to do right by "we the people" not by your political parties! If you fail then you all should be REMOVED!

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-27-2016 at 01:26 PM..
  #4005  
Old 03-27-2016, 02:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Angry When Christians Are Slaughtered, Look the Other Way

U.S. at Easter: When Christians Are Slaughtered, Look the Other Way
Muslims Slaughter Over 10,000 Christians and Destroy 13,000 Churches in Nigeria
by Raymond Ibrahim


March 27, 2016
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/77...ns-slaughtered


"Over 500 Christian villagers were slain in one night." — Emmanuel Ogebe, Nigerian human rights lawyer, March 2, 2016.

What Christians in Nigeria are experiencing is a live snapshot of what millions of Christians and other non-Muslims have experienced since the seventh century, when Islam "migrated" to their borders: violence, persecution, enslavement, and the destruction of churches.

The Obama Administration refuses to associate Boko Haram — an organization that defines itself in purely Islamic terms — with Islam, just as it refuses to associate the ISIS with Islam.

In all cases, the Obama Administration looks the other way, while insisting that the jihad is a product of "inequality," "poverty" and "a lack of opportunity for jobs" — never of Islamic teaching.

Boko Haram, the Nigerian Islamic extremist group, has killed more people in the name of jihad than the Islamic State (ISIS), according to the findings of a new report. Since 2000, when twelve Northern Nigerian states began implementing or more fully enforcing Islamic sharia law, "between 9,000 to 11,500 Christians" have been killed. This is "a conservative estimate."

In addition, "1.3 million Christians have become internally displaced or forced to relocate elsewhere," and "13,000 churches have been closed or destroyed altogether." Countless "thousands of Christian businesses, houses and other property have been destroyed."

The report alludes to a number of other factors that connect the growth of the Nigerian jihad to the growth of the global jihad. The rise of anti-Christian, Islamic supremacism

"did not emerge in Northern Nigeria until the 1980s, when Nigerian scholars and students returned from Arabic countries influenced by Wahhabi and Salafist teaching. Each year, thousands of West African Muslims get free scholarships to pursue their studies in the Sunni Arab countries; this has had a major impact on Nigerian culture."

This "major impact" is not limited to Nigeria. Saudi Arabia annually spends over $100 billion disseminating "Wahhabi and Salafist teaching" — or what growing numbers of Muslims refer to as "true Islam". They also do so through European mosques and those in the United States. Behind the radicalization of ISIS, Boko Haram, and Lone Wolf Muslims, stand America's best Muslim friends and allies.

Another important finding from the report is that,

"Not just radical Islam, Boko Haram being the most notable example, but also Muslim Hausa-Fulani herdsmen and the Northern Muslim political and religious elite are also major actors of targeted violence towards the Christian minority."

Most recently, on March 2, Nigerian human rights lawyer Emmanuel Ogebe sent an email saying: "I arrived Nigeria a few days ago to investigate what appears to be the worst massacre by Muslim [Hausa-Fulani] herdsmen... Over 500 Christian villagers were slain in one night."

Similarly, according to a West African source, "Once Boko Haram is defeated, the problem will not be solved. Christians living under Sharia law are facing discrimination and marginalization and have limited to no access to federal rights."

The report finally finds that much of the anti-Christian violence derives from the historical "migration of Muslims into non-Muslim territories in northern Nigeria to promote the Islamic religious and missionary agenda in all parts of northern Nigeria." In other words, what Christians in Nigeria are experiencing is a live snapshot of what millions of Christians and other non-Muslims have experienced since the seventh century, when Islam "migrated" to their borders: violence, persecution, enslavement, and the destruction of churches.

All of these findings contradict the Obama Administration's official narrative concerning the unrest in Nigeria. For years, the administration refused to list Boko Haram — which has slaughtered more Christians and "apostates" than even ISIS — as a terrorist organization. It finally did so in November 2013, after several years of pressure from lawmakers, human rights activists, and lobbyists.

For years, the Obama Administration refused to list Boko Haram — which has slaughtered more Christians and "apostates" than even ISIS — as a terrorist organization. It finally did so in November 2013, after several years of pressure. Pictured above: Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau (center).

Even so, the Obama Administration refuses to associate Boko Haram — an organization that defines itself in purely Islamic terms — with Islam, just as it refuses to associate the ISIS with Islam. Although Boko Haram and its allies have yet to miss a year when they do not bomb or burn several churches during the Christmas or Easter celebrations, on Easter Day, 2012, after the organization had murdered 39 Christian worshippers, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson said: "I want to take this opportunity to stress one key point and that is that religion is not driving extremist violence" in the Muslim-majority north.

So what is? The administration attributes to Boko Haram the same motivation it attributes to the Islamic State — or as President Bill Clinton once memorably put it in a reference to Boko Haram's murder campaign: "inequality" and "poverty" are "what's fueling all this stuff."

That assessment is similar to the Obama Administration's claim that "a lack of opportunity for jobs" is what created ISIS; or CIA John Brennan's claim that the jihadi ideology the world over is "fed a lot of times by, you know, political repression, by economic, you know, disenfranchisement, by, you know, lack of education and ignorance, so there — there are a number of phenomena right now that I think are fueling the fires of, you know, this ideology."

Appeasing the jihadis has been the administration's policy, or in the words of Clinton's advice to the Nigerian government: "[i]t is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence." Countless decapitated Christian heads later, when Nigerian forces killed 30 Boko Haram members in a particularly powerful offensive carried out in May 2013, Reuters reported that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry "issued a strongly worded statement" to the Nigerian president: "We are ... deeply concerned," he said, "by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate the violence and fuel extremism" from Boko Haram.

Christian life in Muslim-majority areas of Nigeria is merely a microcosm of Christian life in Muslim-majority nations around the world. Christians are being persecuted and killed, their churches banned, burned or bombed. Thanks to Saudi petrodollars, the men behind the persecution are almost always "influenced by Wahhabi and Salafist teaching," and include not just "extremists," but also the "political and religious elite." In all cases, the Obama Administration looks the other way, while insisting that the jihad is a product of "inequality," "poverty" and "a lack of opportunity for jobs" — never of Islamic teaching.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/77...ns-slaughtered
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4006  
Old 03-28-2016, 01:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Red face Fidel Castro Lectures Obama After Cuba Trip

Fidel Castro Lectures Obama After Cuba Trip
By Nick Gass



Fidel Castro ripped into the president, bringing up Obama's relative youth. | AP



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...o-obama-221279


President Barack Obama did not meet with Fidel Castro during his historic visit to Cuba last week, but apparently that does not mean that Castro did not have any thoughts about el presidente norteamericano in his country.

Castro ripped into the president and his words during the visit in El Granma, the official state newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party, bringing up Obama's relative youth, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the role of both countries in ending the apartheid in South Africa and elsewhere on the continent in an article titled "El hermano Obama."

"Native populations do not exist at all in the minds of Obama," Castro wrote. "Nor does he say that racial discrimination was swept away by the Revolution; that retirement and salary of all Cubans were enacted by this before Mr. Barack Obama was 10 years old."

Referring to the 1961 failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs, Castro wrote of the U.S.' "mercenary force with cannons and armored infantry, equipped with aircraft ... trained and accompanied by warships and aircraft carriers in the U.S. raiding our country. Nothing can justify this premeditated attack that cost our country hundreds of killed and wounded."

Castro referred also to Obama's invocation of both countries' role in the end of apartheid in South Africa, remarking upon his country's 1975 intervention in Angola backing the leftist People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola against other U.S.-backed revolutionary forces. Ridding apartheid South Africa of nuclear weapons "was not the goal of our solidarity," he wrote, "but [rather] to help the people of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and other fascist colonial rule of Portugal."

In referring to the origins of South Africa's nuclear weapons, Castro mentioned the "help that racist South Africa had received from [Ronald] Reagan and Israel."

"I do not know what Obama has to say on this story now," Castro wrote, adding, "although it is very doubtful that I knew absolutely nothing."

"My modest suggestion is to reflect and do not try now to develop theories about Cuban politics."

Cuba "has no need of gifts" from the United States, Castro concluded. "Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, because it is our commitment to peace and brotherhood of all human beings living on this planet."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...o-obama-221279
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-28-2016 at 01:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4007  
Old 03-28-2016, 02:09 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default Islam’s Willing Executioners: The Truth Obama Refuses to Tell

Islam’s Willing Executioners
Now is the time to consider what makes an Islamic terrorist so barbaric and so hateful of Westerners that they have no reservations about blowing-up and murdering infants, children, women and men as they go about their daily chores.
By Ron Jager


http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...cutioners.html


Islam cannot conceive of itself as a minority in a secular State. Violent Islamists, an active and determined minority of Muslims, refuse integration. In Europe, they not only intend to keep their Islamic identity, but to Islamize the non-practicing and convert by force the natives of the host country that they inhabit. As the Belgian people, and the whole of the Western Europe, wake up to the growing threat of radical Islam, it is clear that the European Union’s comfort-zone has come to an end. The people of Europe are asking themselves, how and why they have so willingly allowed themselves to be blinded to the point of not seeing the proliferation and threat of radical Islam throughout the streets and towns of Europe.

Ever since the day of Napoleon's landing upon the shores of Egypt at the very end of the 18th Century bringing the modern era to the Middle East, Islam has been unable to free itself from the shackles of inferiority and self-destructive primal rage that typifies the hatred of Western civilization by modern day radical Islamists.

Now is the time to consider what makes an Islamic terrorist so barbaric and so hateful of Westerners that they have no reservations about blowing-up and murdering infants, children, women and men as they go about their daily chores. These terror attacks are reminiscent of the indiscriminate killing of Jews and Christians alike before and during the Holocaust. The Islamic terror wave that stalks Europeans to be murdered for no other reason than their Western identity has its roots in Islamic-Nazi ideologies established during the years prior to the Holocaust in Europe. Yet, rather than expose the similarities between Nazi ideology and the Radical Islamic incitement to murder Europeans, the international media chooses to report on the Islamic terror wave exclusively through the prism of a multicultural-politically correct terminology that refuses to demand of Islam to be accountable and take responsible action against the inherent radicalism that so many Muslim young adults have adopted and identify with.

For the Islamic suicide terrorists who blow themselves up, premeditated murder has become a tool for redemption. This current Islamic terror wave can trace its roots to the link between Nazism and the nascent radical Islamic movement during the years prior to World War II. For example, in a Nazi directive of 1943: "The extermination of Jewry throughout the world is the precondition for an enduring peace." Such a statement is remarkably similar, if not identical, to Islamic religious leaders then and now who proclaim at every opportunity that Jews and Christians must be wiped out for Muslims to become Martyrs and reach heaven. A common thread unifies the desire for the total destruction of those that do not accept the Nazi ideology of the past or the Islamist ideology of today; hence the validity of the term Islamo-Nazism. The Nazis spoke of “redemptive anti-Semitism,” namely a form of anti-Semitism that explains all in the world and offer a form of “redemption” by exterminating the Jews. Radical Islamic religious leaders provide the same rationale for murdering non-Muslims: their murder is a bridge that martyrs (Shahid) must cross to reach heaven.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in Mandatory Palestine played leading roles in inculcating the spirit of Nazism into Muslim consciousness. Nazis found refuge after the end of World War II and continued their activities in exile in the Arab world, mainly Egypt. Academicians throughout the world are aware of the Islamic-Nazi connection knowing the historical consequences of redemptive anti-Semitism and its current manifestation in Islamic thinking and Islam as a religion. Yet, rather than exposing this indisputable historical fact, they lend their support to perpetuate the false belief that Islamic newcomers to Europe can be integrated and accept the norms, values, and principles of Western society.

The fact that since 9/11, the hatred of the West has reached truly epidemic proportions in the Islamic world has been also been downplayed or ignored by academicians, politicians, and opinion makers in the media. Overlooked as well in the history books is the fact that about 100,000 European Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Islamic Anti-Semitism has long been recognized as the Arab world’s prominent vehicle for the hatred of the Jews. From Islamic academics teaching that Judaism permits murder and rape of non-Jews, to religious leaders teaching that Islam demands the extermination of Jews, Islamic redemptive anti-Semitism is a compelling force driving hatred and terror. Jews are depicted as the archetypal force of evil throughout history. Jews are said to be responsible for all the world’s problems: wars, financial crises, even the spreading of AIDS. In short, Jews are a danger to humanity.

While this paradigm has been used by Nazis before, the Islamists take it a step further, turning the demonization of Jews into the basis for Palestinian denial of Israel’s right to exist and a central component of Islamic thinking and Islamic religious identity. The Anti-Semitic oppression, persecution and expulsions suffered by Jews throughout history are presented as the legitimate self-defense responses of the Nazis then and the Islamic nations of the world today. The ongoing Islamic terror wave in Europe is a testament of the transformation of the Nazis’ redemptive anti-Semitism to an Islamic need to murder innocent non-Muslims for eternal redemption in heaven.

Radical Islam has created a false and deceptive reality that will sooner than later crumble and implode. Over the past five years we have all witnessed how quickly Arab leaders throughout the Middle East have had to flee from their own people due to the eruption of rage and hatred by Muslim believers. The true narrative of the Middle East is that no Islamic state genuinely respects human rights. No Islamic state hosts a responsible media. No Islamic society fully respects the rights of women or minorities, and no Islamic government has ever accepted public responsibility for its own shortcomings. Blame of Jews and the West has become the opiate of the Muslim world.

Thus is born the obsessive campaign to demonize and de-legitimize all members of Western societies, Jews and Christians alike. Only by spreading the word and exposing the historically lethal link between Nazism and Islamic terror, the modern torchbearers of redemptive anti-Semitism, can we regain the moral high ground in defending Western civilization against the global tsunami of Islamic terror throughout the world.

Ron Jager is a 25-year veteran of the I.D.F., and has served as a field mental health officer. Prior to retiring in 2005, he served as the Commander of the Central Psychiatric Military Clinic for Reserve Soldiers at Tel-Hashomer. Since retiring from active duty, he provides consultancy services to NGO’s implementing Psycho trauma and Psycho education programs to communities in the North and South of Israel. Today Ron is a strategic advisor at the Office of the Chief Foreign Envoy of Judea and Samaria.








The rest of the article is here> http://freedomoutpost.com/islamists-...rldwide-jihad/







So who is telling the TRUTH and who is a LIAR?


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-28-2016 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4008  
Old 03-29-2016, 01:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Journalists Hit Back at Obama's Latest 'Lecturing'

Journalists Hit Back at Obama's Latest 'Lecturing'
By EDDIE SCARRY


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2587052


Political reporters and commentators are striking back at President Obama, who delivered a speech Monday night that rapped the news media (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...rticle/2587036) for what he said was superficial reporting and an unwillingness refute untrue statements from political figures.

At a press-freedom awards ceremony in Washington, Obama said the news media was failing to accurately cover Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and that reporters are too hung up (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...rticle/2587045) on the popularity of their 140-character tweets.

"There's a man lecturing the media on how to do their business," said MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough on Tuesday. "The man who has not sat down for an extended interview with the Washington Post in seven and a half years, and yet gladly submits himself to being interviewed by YouTube stars who sit in bathtubs with milk and Fruitloops."

Obama is known for preferring non-traditional media venues to push his administration's view on policy and politics, such as the time he met with YouTube celebrities. The White House has also been criticized for lacking transparency and for delayed responses to Freedom of Information requests.

"Any reporter who's dealt with this White house will say it's as frustrating, if not more frustrating, than dealing with past presidents," said Politico CEO Jim VandeHei.

Several reporters said on Twitter that Obama's remarks seemed to be mostly aimed at political coverage that goes against him or Democrats. That point was echoed by liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who said on Morning Joe, "It just drives me nuts, [Obama] lectures us about how to cover Donald Trump, basically."

Robinson added that "in fact, we write the stories, we write the stories about how [Trump's] numbers don't add up and it doesn't make any sense. The frustration is that the voters keep voting of him and we're are supposed to do something about that?"

Other reporters were also taken aback by Obama's criticism of the news media.

"Hey thanks Obama for your chill comments on journalism, maybe tell the FBI to fulfill a FOIA in less than a year while you're at it," said one New Jersey-based reporter on Twitter, following the president's comments.

Marc Caputo of Politico also tweeted, "Obama admin. slow-walks Freedom of Information requests, limits press access/plays favorites, prosecutes reporters, then he lectures journalists."

Marc Caputo ✔ ‎@MarcACaputo
Obama admin slow-walks freedom of info requests. Limits press access/plays favs. Prosecutes reporters. Then he lectures journalists
7:46 PM - 28 Mar 2016 · Arlington, VA, United States
208 Retweets 155 likes

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2587052
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 03-29-2016 at 01:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4009  
Old 03-29-2016, 01:58 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Angry Obama's Wisdom











__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4010  
Old 03-31-2016, 12:55 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation How Putin is out-maneuvering Obama in Syria

HOW PUTIN IS OUT-MANEUVERING OBAMA IN SYRIA
Russia moves to save its brutal ally -- and is encountering little resistance.
By Joseph Klein



http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2623...a-joseph-klein


In what has become a monthly ritual, the United Nations Security Council received a briefing on March 30th regarding the very dire humanitarian conditions in war-torn Syria. Stephen O’Brien, the Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, delivered the latest assessment. He noted as positive developments a respite in violence in some parts of the country since the cessation of hostilities came into effect one month ago, and some limited progress on access for the delivery of humanitarian aid to besieged and hard-to-reach areas. However, he said that many of the 4.6 million people in need “still remain outside our reach due to insecurity and obstructions by the parties.”

Syrian authorities are still throwing bureaucratic hurdles in the way of getting timely approvals for delivery of critical medical supplies, food, and other aid. The “daily misery” in the affected areas “shames us all,” O’Brien said.

The so-called peace talks conducted by UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, which are intended to find a political solution that brings an end to the conflict, got off to a belated start this February. And once they began, they have proceeded in a stop-and-go fashion. They are now in adjournment until the second week of April.

Mr. de Mistura tried to put the best face on the peace process to date. At least, he said, there were “no breakdowns, no walkouts and no de-legitimization.” Perhaps that is so for right now. But there has been no substantive progress either. This lack of progress is reflected in a paper produced by the Special Envoy, acting as a facilitator, which purported to show a number of potential areas of common ground between the government and the opposition. It sidestepped what he called “the mother of all issues, the transition, the political transition, the political process.” The “elephant in the room,” namely Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s future role, was ignored as well.

The Syrian government and opposition representatives have not been meeting face-to-face. Rather, they have engaged in what are euphemistically called “proximity talks,” with Mr. de Mistura playing the go-between. Nevertheless, Secretary of State John Kerry, the pollyannaish architect of the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, said earlier in March, "We may face the best opportunity that we've had in years to end (the war).”

To the extent that the talks in Geneva are continuing at all, Russia, not the United States, has created the conditions on the ground that gave both sides the incentive to at least go through the motions. Russia’s military intervention in Syria bolstered Bashar al-Assad’s bargaining position, as his regime’s forces were able to take back some territory lost to the Syrian rebels. Following its military successes, Russia withdrew a significant amount of its forces from Syria, although they can be easily returned if needed. The opposition’s losses on the ground have caused some key opposition members to confront the stark reality of their deteriorating situation. The only realistic chance they have of obtaining any sharing of political power in Syria is to participate in the talks being conducted by Mr. de Mistura, with the backing of Russia and the United States. One key stumbling block for the opposition, however, is deciding who is entitled to represent them in Geneva.

Here again, Russia is influencing the outcome. The UN Special Envoy met not only with the so-called “official” opposition delegation approved by Saudi Arabia, which wants to see President Assad step down. Mr. de Mistura also met with an opposition group supported by Russia. Known as the Moscow Group, it is demanding equal negotiating status with the members of the "official" opposition High Negotiations Committee. The latter has claimed the exclusive right to represent the opposition in the negotiations and wants Assad out of power as soon as possible. However, the Moscow Group, with Russia’s backing, is not insisting on Assad’s departure when it comes time to create a transitional government. This is a recipe for a divided opposition, which the Syrian regime can exploit to its advantage.

The co-president of the Moscow Group is Syria’s former deputy premier. Although he was removed from his government position by Assad in 2013, the Syrian government would rather negotiate with his group than the more intractable High Negotiations Committee. Just as Russia managed to turn things around for Assad on the battlefield by giving him air cover, Russia is now giving Assad diplomatic cover by pushing for recognition of the Moscow Group as part of the official opposition delegation.

Vladimir Putin continues to outsmart President Obama at every turn. We saw it happen when Putin got Obama to back off his “red line” against Assad’s use of chemical weapons. We saw it happen during the nuclear negotiations with Iran and its aftermath. Russia is exploiting loopholes in the deal agreed to by the Obama administration in order to now protect Iran from the imposition of Security Council sanctions for its testing of ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons. And now we are seeing Putin use the military gains he helped Assad win on the battlefield and a strategy to divide the opposition as the means to influence the direction of the peace talks to his ally’s advantage.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2623...a-joseph-klein
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4011  
Old 03-31-2016, 01:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Obama: Islam Inherently Violent? Absurd!

OBAMA: ISLAM INHERENTLY VIOLENT? ABSURD!
That’s something only the “Republican base” believes. Along with all too many Muslims.
By Robert Spencer




http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2623...robert-spencer


Barack Obama is amused.

“I’m amused,” he said in remarks published Tuesday (http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...m-isis/475833/), “when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are. And if you’ve been hearing that a lot, and then somebody shows up on the scene and says, well, the logical conclusion to civilizational conflict is we try to make sure that we’re not destroyed internally by this foreign civilization, that’s what you get.”

Where would anyone get the crazy idea that Islam was inherently violent? Well, the day’s headlines might give us that very strong impression, but Obama would tell us (and has told us) that those Muslims who are screaming “Allahu akbar” as they murder non-Muslims are, despite appearances, not really Muslims at all, but just people who have twisted, hijacked, misunderstood the Religion of Peace.

It is, true, however, that there are plenty of Muslims who tell us that Islam is inherently violent. Here are a few of them:

“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30

“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/03/91...u-the-jihad-in)

“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/01/al...il-gods-orders)

“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/ti...it-all-for-you)

“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/ar...-one-who-parti)

“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari. (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/in...erful-than-tnt)

Obama would dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.

One might also get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from these Qur’an verses:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”

4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women, for Allah has made one superior to the another, and because they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”

4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”

8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”

8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby 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.”

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history.

According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as inherently violent. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as being inherently violent acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the true, peaceful Islam that Obama assumes to exist come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence, instead of just issuing pro-forma condemnations. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/mo...eatened-with-d) by Muslim clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.

We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2623...robert-spencer

To bad Obama does not put the same zeal into defending Christians, Jews, Yazidis, and other minorities being slaughtered in Syria and Iraq! Perhaps Obama does NOT consider Them HIS responsibility???





__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

Jamal Muhaisen of the Fatah Central Committee:
The U.S. Is No. 1 Enemy of the Palestinians and of the Arab and Islamic Nation



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 04-02-2016 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4012  
Old 03-31-2016, 03:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Jake Tapper: Obama Hypocritical With Media Criticism

Jake Tapper: Obama Hypocritical With Media Criticism


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

  #4013  
Old 04-01-2016, 02:44 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Russia Doubling Nuclear Warheads

Russia Doubling Nuclear Warheads
New multiple-warhead missiles to break arms treaty limit
BY: Bill Gertz



http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...lear-warheads/


Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.

A recent intelligence assessment of the Russian strategic warhead buildup shows that the increase is the result of the addition of multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, on recently deployed road-mobile SS-27 and submarine-launched SS-N-32 missiles, said officials familiar with reports of the buildup.

“The Russians are doubling their warhead output,” said one official. “They will be exceeding the New START [arms treaty] levels because of MIRVing these new systems.”

The 2010 treaty requires the United States and Russia to reduce deployed warheads to 1,550 warheads by February 2018.

The United States has cut its warhead stockpiles significantly in recent years. Moscow, however, has increased its numbers of deployed warheads and new weapons.

The State Department revealed in January that Russia currently has exceeded the New START warhead limit by 98 warheads, deploying a total number of 1,648 warheads. The U.S. level currently is below the treaty level at 1,538 warheads.

Officials said that in addition to adding warheads to the new missiles, Russian officials have sought to prevent U.S. weapons inspectors from checking warheads as part of the 2010 treaty.

The State Department, however, said it can inspect the new MIRVed missiles.

Disclosure of the doubling of Moscow’s warhead force comes as world leaders gather in Washington this week to discus nuclear security—but without Russian President Vladimir Putin, who skipped the conclave in an apparent snub of the United States.

The Nuclear Security Summit is the latest meeting of world leaders seeking to pursue President Obama’s 2009 declaration of a world without nuclear arms.

Russia, however, is embarked on a major strategic nuclear forces build-up under Putin. Moscow is building new road-mobile, rail-mobile, and silo-based intercontinental-range missiles, along with new submarines equipped with modernized missiles. A new long-range bomber is also being built.

“Russia’s modernization program and their nuclear deterrent force is of concern,” Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, which is in charge of nuclear forces, told Congress March 10.

“When you look at what they’ve been modernizing, it didn’t just start,” Haney said. “They’ve been doing this quite frankly for some time with a lot of crescendo of activity over the last decade and a half.”

By contrast, the Pentagon is scrambling to find funds to pay for modernizing aging U.S. nuclear forces after seven years of sharp defense spending cuts under Obama.

Earlier this month, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that Russia continues to pose the greatest threat to the United States.

“The one that has the greatest capability and poses the greatest threat to the United States is Russia because of its capabilities—its nuclear capability, its cyber capability, and clearly because of some of the things we have seen in its leadership behavior over the last couple of years,” Dunford said.

In addition to a large-scale nuclear buildup, Russia has upgraded its nuclear doctrine and its leaders and officials have issued numerous threats to use nuclear arms against the United States in recent months, compounding fears of a renewed Russian threat.

Blake Narendra, spokesman for the State Department’s arms control, verification, and compliance bureau, said the Russian warhead build-up is the result of normal fluctuations due to modernization prior to the compliance deadline.

“The Treaty has no interim limits,” Narendra told the Free Beacon. “We fully expect Russia to meet the New START treaty central limits in accordance with the stipulated timeline of February 2018. The treaty provides that by that date both sides must have no more than 700 deployed treaty-limited delivery vehicles and 1,550 deployed warheads.”

Both the United States and Russia continue to implement the treaty in “a business-like manner,” he added.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon official involved in strategic nuclear forces, however, said he has warned for years that Russia is not reducing its nuclear forces under the treaty.

Since the New START arms accord, Moscow has eliminated small numbers of older SS-25 road-mobile missiles. But the missiles were replaced with new multiple-warhead SS-27s.

“The Russians have not claimed to have made any reductions for five years,” Schneider said

Additionally, Russian officials deceptively sought to make it appear their nuclear forces have been reduced during a recent nuclear review conference.

“If they could have claimed to have made any reductions under New START counting rules they would have done it there,” Schneider said.

The Obama administration also has been deceptive about the benefits of New START.

“The administration public affairs talking points on New START reductions border on outright lies,” Schneider said.

“The only reductions that have been made since New START entry into force have been by the United States,” he said. “Instead, Russia has moved from below the New START limits to above the New START limits in deployed warheads and deployed delivery vehicles.”

Deployment of new multiple-warhead SS-27s and SS-N-32s are pushing up the Russian warhead numbers. Published Russian reports have stated the missiles will be armed with 10 warheads each.

Former Defense Secretary William Perry said Thursday that New START was “very helpful” in promoting strategic stability but that recent trends in nuclear weapons are “very, very bad.”

“When President Obama made his speech in Prague, I thought we were really set for major progress in this field [disarmament],” Perry said in remarks at the Atlantic Council.

However, Russian “hostility” to the United States ended the progress. “Everything came to a grinding halt and we’re moving in reverse,” Perry said.

Other nuclear powers that are expanding their arsenals include China and Pakistan, Perry said.

Perry urged further engagement with Russia on nuclear weapons. “We do have a common interest in preventing a nuclear catastrophe,” he said.

Perry is advocating that the United States unilaterally eliminate all its land-based missiles and rely instead on nuclear missile submarines and bombers for deterrence.

However, he said his advocacy of the policy “may be pursuing a mission impossible.”

“I highly doubt the Russians would follow suit” by eliminating their land-based missiles, the former secretary said.

Additionally, Moscow is building a new heavy ICBM called Sarmat, code-named SS-X-30 by the Pentagon, that will be equipped with between 10 and 15 warheads per missile. And a new rail-based ICBM is being developed that will also carry multiple warheads.

Another long-range missile, called the SS-X-31, is under development and will carry up to 12 warheads.

Schneider, the former Pentagon official, said senior Russian arms officials have been quoted in press reports discussing Moscow’s withdrawal from the New START arms accord. If that takes place, Russia will have had six and a half years to prepare to violate the treaty limits, at the same time the United States will have reduced its forces to treaty limits.

“Can they comply with New START? Yes. They can download their missile warheads and do a small number to delivery systems reductions,” Schneider said. “Will they? I doubt it. If they don’t start to do something very soon they are likely to pull the plug on the treaty. I don’t see them uploading the way they have, only to download in the next two years.”

The White House said Moscow’s failure to take part in the nuclear summit was a sign of self-isolation based on the West’s sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for the military takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea.

A Russian official said the snub by Putin was directed at Obama.

“This summit is particularly important for the USA and for Obama—this is probably why Moscow has decided to go for this gesture and show its outrage with the West’s policy in this manner,” Alexei Arbatov, director of the Center for International Security at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told the business newspaper Vedomosti.

A Russian Foreign Ministry official, Mikhail Ulyanov, told RIA Novosti that the summit was not needed.

“There is no need for it, to be honest,” he said, adding that nuclear security talks should be the work of nuclear physicists, intelligence services, and engineers.

“The political agenda of the summits has long been exhausted,” Ulyanov said.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...lear-warheads/

It looks like Obama is the April's FOOL! Paparock
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4014  
Old 04-01-2016, 03:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Cuban State Media: ‘Negro’ Obama ‘Incited Rebellion and Disorder’

Cuban State Media: ‘Negro’ Obama ‘Incited Rebellion and Disorder’
by FRANCES MARTEL


http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...lion-disorder/


The Havana Tribune, a state-controlled Cuban newspaper, has added insult to injury following Fidel Castro’s scathing criticism of President Barack Obama upon his departure from the island. In an editorial, the title of which refers to President Obama as “negro,” an opinion columnist has accused him of “inciting rebellion.”

The article is titled “Negro, ¿Tu Eres Sueco?” (http://www.tribuna.cu/opinion/2016-0...o#comment-4977) which roughly translates to “Black Man, Are You Dumb?” (The idiom “pretend to be a Swede” means to play dumb, hence the title is literally asking, “Are you Swedish?” - http://www.citylifemadrid.com/odd-sp...erse-el-sueco/) The author, who is black (http://www.14ymedio.com/opinion/ofen...972002781.html), goes on to condemn President Obama for meeting with Cuban pro-democracy activists and “subtly” suggesting that the Cuban Revolution needed to change. “Obama came, saw, but unfortunately, with the pretend gesture of lending a hand, tried to conquer,” Elias Argudín writes.

“[Obama] chose to criticize and subtly suggest … incitations to rebellion and disorder, without caring that he was on foreign ground. Without a doubt, Obama overplayed his hand,” he continues. “The least I can say is, Virulo-style: ‘Negro, are you dumb?'”

Virulo is a white pro-Revolution comedian (http://www.virulencialuthierana.org/).

Argudín’s article later accuses President Obama of presiding over a racist country–mocking the calls for freedom in Cuba by stating, “Which freedom–the freedom enjoyed by white police to massacre and manhandle black people?”–and issue demands parroted straight from the Castro regime: the end of the “genocidal” embargo and giving the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, which has belonged to the United States since before Cuban independence, to the Castros.

Claims of rampant discrimination on the part of white police in the United States are common among the leaders and spokesmen of rogue communist states like China (http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...ct-of-society/), North Korea (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...-human-rights/), and Zimbabwe (http://platform.blogs.com/passionoft...wes_presi.html).

The column appears on the Havana Tribune website with a March 23 dateline, though it appeared in the print edition (http://www.14ymedio.com/opinion/ofen...972002781.html) of the newspaper on Monday and has begun to make the rounds online this week. It has received intense criticism (http://yusnaby.com/prensa-oficialist...a-negro-obama/) from Cuban-Americans on social media for its disrespect of the president and openly racist language.

Argudín has since written a follow-up article (http://www.tribuna.cu/opinion/2016-0...jas-racialidad) in which he claims he “did not expect” the negative feedback and apologizes “to those who may have been offended.” He then accuses his critics of “misunderstanding” his piece:

It is not necessary to be an advanced reader to note: I did not write a racist column. The word “negro” is mentioned twice, in the title and the phrase giving the article its name, which isn’t even mine. It is a reference to a comedy work. Journalism has its rules. It also allows some licenses. Among the demands of the job there is a very important one: capture the reader’s attention from the title.

Argudín’s piece has, nonetheless, highlighted the rampant discrimination against Afro-Cubans that has existed throughout the history of the Revolution. As the leaders of the communist Revolution were all white–and at least one was an avowed racist (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_1199252.html) —few Afro-Cubans currently hold positions of power in Cuba (http://yusnaby.com/prensa-oficialist...a-negro-obama/), though an estimated 60 percent of the nation is black. (http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...-black-racism/)

In a video declaration in 2015, Ladies in White dissident leader Berta Soler explains that, of known political prisoners, 60 percent are black. Black people are often forced to live in segregated neighborhoods and kept far away from tourism industry jobs (except prostitution). “To the government, the black person is a thief, a bandit, a troublemaker,” Soler argues, noting that the Cuban people are significantly less racist than the regime. “Interracial marriage is resulting in fewer black people. … This is a problem for the government,” she notes.

In a series about racism in Cuba, The Root notes a common phrase (http://www.theroot.com/articles/cult...in_cuba.2.html) used by revolutionaries: “Negrada–which means, literally, a group of black people–came to signify a screw-up, a f*cked-up affair. ¡Que negrada! became as common as hustling foreigners.”

The inevitable use of what, in the United States, is considered a racial slur (though Cubans often use negro as a term of endearment - https://books.google.com/books?id=x1...arment&f=false), is the latest indignity in a trip to Cuba laden with them, from the slight of Raúl Castro failing to greet President Obama upon landing in Havana (http://www.breitbart.com/news/the-la...ed-at-airport/) to Castro openly denying the presence of political prisoners in Cuba, only to have President Obama later “welcome (http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ited-states/)” his criticism on America. The elder Fidel Castro, or someone claiming to be him, weighed in (http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...brother-obama/) with a scathing column in the national publication Granma this week, in which he accused President Obama of being racist towards Native Americans and refused his call to normalization: “We do not need the Empire to gift us anything.”


http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...lion-disorder/
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 04-01-2016 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4015  
Old 04-01-2016, 04:06 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Question Will Obama Protect Hillary From Prosecution?

WILL OBAMA PROTECT HILLARY FROM PROSECUTION?
FBI investigation of Clinton’s e-mail scandal comes to a critical turning point.
By Joseph Klein



http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2623...n-joseph-klein


Hillary Clinton was fond of saying during her presidential campaign,No individual too big to jail (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...o_jail.html).” That is, until she realized her catchy phrase could be applied to her own travails with the FBI. Hillary then substituted the word “executive” for “individual,” seemingly ruling out in her mind jail time for such lofty public figures as herself.

We shall soon see whether Hillary is too big to be brought to account for her reckless handling of classified information on her private e-mail system. “Lesser” mortals such as Gen. David Petraeus (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...html?tid=a_inl) have been criminally prosecuted for offenses far less serious than Hillary’s continuing abuse of her position during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The FBI is reportedly nearing the final stages of its investigation (http://www.mediaite.com/online/ajams...-in-mere-days/), after having finished their examination of Hillary’s private e-mail server. IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail system, was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in return for his cooperation. He has reportedly provided valuable information on the details of the system. "Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton's] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized," an intelligence source close to the case told Fox News.

Armed with this information, the FBI and Department of Justice prosecutors are said to be preparing to set up interviews with Hillary Clinton’s top aides and Hillary herself in the near future.

Clinton rejects out of hand the possibility that she could be indicted. "Oh for goodness—that is not going to happen,'' Clinton responded to a question posed by a correspondent from Univision during her March 9th debate with Senator Bernie Sanders.

"I'm not even answering that question,'' she added to applause from the partisan audience. Hillary may have to answer to federal prosecutors, however, if the FBI recommends a criminal referral, unless of course the Obama administration runs interference for her.

Hillary has been relying on essentially four rather shaky defenses to wiggle out of trouble.

First, while admitting what she did was a mistake, she contends that she broke no rules. This contention is false. Hillary evaded rules governing federal records management by using her private e-mail server system exclusively (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/), according to Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy. "Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

Second, Hillary has frequently used the defense that everybody did what she did. "My predecessors did the same thing,'' she said during the March 9th debate. This contention is at best misleading. Former Secretaries of State such as Colin Powell did use their personal e-mail accounts for government-related business from time to time. However, they did not do so exclusively, and they did not use their own home server to receive and store the e-mails.

Third, Hillary argues that she never sent or received e-mails that were marked “classified” at the time they were sent or received. She has accused the federal agencies that make the classification determinations of going overboard in retroactively changing the classification of many documents to “classified.” With her training and federal government experience, however, Hillary surely knew that some e-mails or other documents are “born” classified because of the inherently sensitive nature of their contents. It turns out that a number of e-mails were found to contain “top secret” information, which a senior government official in her position should have known was the case when she received them. Moreover, whether or not a document was marked originally as classified or not is beside the point. Hillary was on direct notice of this fact when she signed the State Department’s Classified Information Disclosure Agreement ( https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOC.../C05833708.pdf ) in 2009, which read in part: “As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications…”

Fourth, Hillary and her team argue that she did not knowingly mishandle any classified information in breach of any relevant national security laws. In other words, even if she were sloppy, such carelessness does not rise to the level of wrongful intent that is required to establish criminal liability. This defense is related to the contention that there were no classified markings on the e-mails when they were sent or received.

This defense should not work for Hillary either. As previously discussed, whether or not the e-mails were originally marked classified is irrelevant, at least with respect to the top secret information that is “born” classified whether marked or not. Moreover, Hillary’s knowledge that what she was doing would end run security requirements in potential violation of certain national security laws can be inferred from her actions. For example, she directed an aide to remove markings from a talking points document, which the aide had informed her was supposed to be sent via a secure fax, and to send the document instead “nonsecure (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...secure.html).” Also, Hillary Clinton’s knowledge of the risks involved to national security from use of personal e-mail accounts to conduct government business can be inferred from an internal cable (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...arred-use.html) her office sent bearing her electronic signature to State Department employees. She is presumed responsible for the contents of a cable that is over her signature. The cable advised the employees not to use their personal accounts for government business for security reasons, focusing on “sensitive but unclassified” information. Hillary knowingly did not practice what she preached, regardless even of whether sensitive classified information would pass through her private system or not.

Hillary’s wrongful intent defense has an even more fundamental problem. One statute, Section 793(f) of Title 18 USC, requires only a finding of gross negligence:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed…Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The facts made public so far point at minimum to Hillary Clinton’s recklessness in setting up and continuing to use a private server to handle e-mails relating to government business while she was Secretary of State. She caused the e-mails to be removed from their proper place of custody within secure government facilities and caused copies to be delivered to her personal attorney who did not apparently have the requisite security clearances. In addition to facing potential charges under the gross negligence statute, Hillary could face obstruction of justice charges if she lies to the FBI when she is interviewed or if she caused e-mails on her private server relating to government business to be destroyed.

Will the Obama administration provide Hillary protection from prosecution, or will she be treated equally under the law like us lesser mortals? It will more likely be the former, but we should soon find out.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2623...n-joseph-klein
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 04-01-2016 at 04:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4016  
Old 04-02-2016, 02:42 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Filmmaker discovers many Muslim Americans favor sharia law

Filmmaker discovers many Muslim Americans favor sharia law


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 04-02-2016 at 02:46 PM..
  #4017  
Old 04-03-2016, 01:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Red face Obama Knows Best

Obama Knows Best
BY HUGH FITZGERALD




http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/04/hu...ama-knows-best


Back in January, at a press conference with David Cameron, Barack Obama delivered himself of some thoughts on how Europe should deal with its Muslim problem. He claimed that the United States had had “more success” than others in “integrating minorities,” and that “our biggest advantage, major, is that our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition.” This was neither the first nor the last time Obama has claimed that “we are doing things right” with integrating Muslims and the Europeans need to learn from us.

Obama’s optimistic certainty is a thing of wonder. For how does he know that “our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans”? Does a Pew poll suffice? Do we have reason to believe that Muslims, eager to dampen the suspicions of non-Muslims, and well-versed in taqiyya, might actually answer such a poll by providing the soothing answers they know are desired, and speak not what they feel, but what they think they ought to say? And does Obama think that the definition of “feeling oneself to be an American” is self-evident? Does someone’s merely living within a given geographic area, and attaining the citizenship associated with that geographic area – living in the United States, say, and acquiring American citizenship through naturalization or birth– mean that that someone feels himself “to be an American”? What does it mean to “be an American”? Would it not mean, in the most important and irreducible sense, that you subscribe to the Constitution, that document at the heart of our civil religion, which means to subscribe to a shared set of beliefs? And these beliefs would include the individual’s right to the freedom of speech and to the freedom of religion, and a belief that the legitimacy of any government depends on its reflecting, however imperfectly through elections, the will expressed by the people. Islam, on the other hand, insists on limiting the freedom of speech (if, for example, such speech is held to blaspheme Muhammad or otherwise call aspects of Islam into question) and the freedom of religion (punishing apostates even with death), and ascribing legitimacy to a government or ruler insofar as that government or ruler reflects the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an, rather than—as in the American system — the will expressed by the people through elections.

Obama has yet to be asked, by some intrepid interviewer, to tell us exactly what his cavalier assertion that “our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans” means to him. Nor has he been asked, either, if he has read the Qur’an and familiarized himself with the Hadith, and if he detects any contradictions between those canonical texts and the Constitution of the United States. As far as I know, not once in all of the hundreds of interviews Obama has granted over the past seven years has anyone asked him that most important question: what do you know about Islamic doctrine, and how do you know it? Jeffrey Goldberg practically filled most of the latest issue of The Atlantic with his Obama interview, and there were plenty of questions about terrorism and ISIS and the Middle East, but he did not take the opportunity to ask Obama about his knowledge of Islam. He’s President; therefore he surely must know what he’s talking about; he’s got a small army of wonderful experts, led by the likes of Ben Rhodes and John Brennan, to fill him in by providing bullet-ridden executive summaries for every occasion; Islam and Obama go all the way back to the dreams of his father, and the melodious sound of the muezzin’s wail in Indonesia, so he must have a grasp of the subject; don’t dare to cross-question him; when it comes to Islam, it’s ipse-dixit all the way.

Obama officiously lectures the Europeans, telling them that we Americans do something right and they should learn from us about the “integration” of their Muslim population. But surely the most important difference is a matter of math — that the percentage of the population in this country that is Muslim is far smaller than in Europe. In the United States it is about 1%, while in Europe the percentage of the population that is Muslim ranges from 5% to 10%. Isn’t it worth finding out what, historically, has happened in Western countries as the percentage of the population that is Muslim increases? Might we end up concluding that “integration” becomes harder pari passu with the increase in the Muslim population, and that the putative American success in integrating Muslims has mostly to do with numbers?

Obama mentions the greater “success” in integrating Muslims in this country. Is he not referring to economic success? Aren’t the Muslim immigrants to the United States, in general, better educated and better off to begin with than those Muslims who manage to settle in Europe? It’s a lot harder, and much more expensive, to find one’s way from North Africa and the Middle East to the United States, than to be smuggled across the Mediterranean by boat into Europe. But economic success is not the same thing as ideological integration. There have been more than a few cases of very successful Muslims, seemingly completely assimilated, who “reverted” to the real Islam. Some may recall Mike Hawash, an Intel engineer earning $300,000 a year, who was as “assimilated” as all get out. And then one fine day he started to become more devout, grew a beard, and ended up trying to get to Afghanistan to give aid and comfort to the Taliban. And how successful is this supposed “integration” when more than half of the Muslim terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11/2001 have been committed by people born and raised in this country, such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Nidal Hasan?

Instead of lecturing the Europeans, one would wish for a President who is sympathetic to their plight, and keenly aware that were Europe to become irreversibly Islamized (here and there there are signs of a growing willingness to fight back – Belgian leaders sound different today from the way they sounded a month ago — but is it enough?), America could not go it, culturally and spiritually, alone. And Europeans, now possibly coming to their senses about the terrible situation they have brought upon themselves, do not need lectures from Obama on what they are doing wrong, and how they must do more to make their societies even more welcoming to Muslims.

Obama’s certainty about Muslim integration in this country mirrors his certainty about policies toward Muslims abroad. He had no doubts about what needed to be done in Syria, an extraordinarily complicated country; in 2011 he declared that “Assad would have to go,” and he repeated that mantra right up to the end of 2015. He declared that there were “red lines” that, if crossed by the Assad regime, would lead to automatic American intervention; those lines were continually crossed, and nothing happened. Assad is still in Damascus, and by now there are many who agree that his remaining in power offers the best hope for containing ISIS and protecting minorities, especially Christians. But the complexity of Syria’s situation was always beyond Obama’s certainties.

In Egypt, Obama was adamant that as part of the “Arab Spring” Mubarak should resign, and eventually he did, making way for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama was certain that our ally Mubarak was a superannuated despot, who deserved to be abandoned, while Morsi brought with him the possibility of a brave new democracy to Egypt, and Obama has never been one to worry overmuch about the Ikhwan. And when General Al-Sisi managed to replace Morsi, and go after the Brotherhood, it was despite, not in concert with, the disapproving Obama administration, that never seemed to quite understand what the Muslim Brotherhood was all about.

In Libya, Obama was also certain of how things would turn out — that once Qaddafi had been removed, Libya would emerge as a unified and democratic polity. Never mind that Libya had never been a democracy, and that the country itself was soon to dissolve, fissiparousness prevailing as power devolved to a myriad of militias, some defined geographically (Zintan, Misrata, Benghazi), others ideologically, including the forces of Ansar al-Sharia and, most recently, of the Islamic State, now dug in in Sirte. (Apparently no one in the Middle East has gotten Obama’s repeated message that the Islamic State is finished.)

Obama’s policy on Muslim matters — at home and abroad — has been a blend of certainty and sanctimony. One hopes that his replacement will at least forego those lectures that, with unhappy regularity, Obama keeps inflicting on our European allies. And possibly, just possibly, that next president will become a sudden scholar of Islam, and read a relevant book or two that Obama overlooked. You know the ones I have in mind.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/04/hu...ama-knows-best
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #4018  
Old 04-03-2016, 03:51 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation U.S. Mulls Ending Ban on Dollars to Aid Iran

U.S. Mulls Ending Ban on Dollars to Aid Iran


by IPT News



http://www.investigativeproject.org/5263/us-mulls-ending-ban-on-dollars-to-aid-iran

The Obama administration is considering relaxing financial restrictions that prevent the use of U.S. dollars in transactions with Iran, according to U.S. officials speaking with the Associated Press.


The Treasury Department has created a general license allowing offshore financial institutions to access U.S. dollars for currency trading in conjuncture with legitimate business transactions with Iran, even though this practice is currently illegal.

Some lawmakers are furious, considering Iran's increasingly belligerent behavior. Moreover, the proposed policy was not part of last year's nuclear agreement signed with Iran.

"These reports are deeply concerning, to say the least...As Iran continues to undermine the spirit of its nuclear agreement with illicit ballistic missile tests, the Obama administration is going out of its way to help Tehran reopen for business. The president should abandon this idea," House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday in a statement.

Since the U.S. dollar is the world's dominant currency, it is frequently used in global financial transactions and conversions. Sanctions prevent Iran from exchanging the money on its own, while international banks are threatened with heavy fines and potential cut off from the American financial market if caught facilitating Iranian transactions involving U.S. currency.

Senior administration officials justify additional assistance to Iran.
"We do believe that they are complying [with the nuclear accord]...Ballistic missiles, support for terrorism, destabilizing activities in the region, that's not the nuclear deal...It's a separate set of issues in which we have the ability to respond," Ben Rhodes, President Obama's deputy national security adviser, told reporters on Thursday.

Top Democrats also objected to the new proposal.

In a letter to the president, U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Cal., argued that allowing the dollar for business transactions with Iran "is clearly not required" by the nuclear agreement and would encourage the Iranians to demand more concessions.

"I do not support granting Iran any new relief without a corresponding concession. We lose leverage otherwise, and Iran receives something for free," added Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No.2-ranked House Democrat.

The proposal violates an administration promise to preserve non-nuclear penalties on Iran following the nuclear deal. Critics argue that the large influx of money will help Iran increase its sponsorship of terrorism worldwide and enhance its regional expansion. In light of recent sanctions relief, Iran continues to invest in the murder of Israelis and anti-regime critics abroad.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/...rs-to-aid-iran


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”


Last edited by Paparock; 04-03-2016 at 03:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4020  
Old 04-04-2016, 01:24 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Did ISIS Just Reveal Its Plans?

Did ISIS Just Reveal Its Plans?
By Michael Curtis


http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...its_plans.html


The first task of the Obama administration should be to fight and eliminate Islamist terrorism. A document just issued by ISIS is perplexing because it is unclear whether the terrorist caliphate is helping the U.S. administration in this task or teasing it by revealing the essence of its terrorist strategy. The document, a February 2016 article in the French edition of the ISIS online propaganda magazine, Dar al-Islam, has explained its campaign to wage war against the West.

In a surprising revelation, ISIS's article rediscovers the basis of German maneuver warfare. It says it is copying the 19th-century tactics of Auftragstaktik, a combat doctrine of the German army similar to Mission Command in the U.S. and U.K. That doctrine was adopted as a response by Germany after its military defeats by Napoleon.

The article cites a 1908 German infantry manual asserting that there is nothing more important in tactics than educating a soldier to think for himself. Though a little un-Germanic, it asserts that a soldier's autonomy and sense of honor push him to do his duty even when it is not in front of his superiors.

The ISIS article explains that the terrorists plan three types of attacks. These include large-scale plots coordinated by the leaders, though these now seem a lesser priority. More important is a warning to the West that the attacks also include isolated actions of individuals who have no direct contact with ISIS but act in its name. This means that followers of ISIS will carry out terrorists attacks without them being traced to the central chain of command.

The concept of Auftragstaktik means a method by which leaders give subordinates a mission, a target, and a time frame by which it should be accomplished and allow those subordinates to carry out their tasks independently. This implies allowing the subordinates complete tactical autonomy and flexibility at the operational level. The leadership is not informed of tactical details of the "lone wolf" operators. The perpetrator adapts tactics to the local situation in flexible fashion.

The concept also means that the subordinates understand the orders, are given general guidance, and are trained to act independently. This means decentralized warfare, terror by autonomy, while following centralized orders.

Perhaps by coincidence, the ISIS strategy bears a striking resemblance to and echoes the U.S. War Marine Corps Manual of June 1997, with its doctrine of maneuver that places a premium on individual judgment and action. This kind of doctrine, with implicit communication through mutual understanding, using a minimum of well understood phrases or even anticipating thoughts, is faster and more effective than using detailed, explicit instructions. All people involved have a shared philosophy.

The result of the ISIS tactics is reminiscent of the assaults and massacres in Madrid, Paris, London, and Brussels. A number of the individual lone wolves have become familiar. The Belgian-Moroccan Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who had spent time in Syria, where he trained ISIS fighters and was linked to ISIS leadership, was responsible for a string of terrorist attacks and the mastermind of the November 15, 2015 massacre in Paris that killed 130 people before Abaaoud himself was killed in a police raid in Paris.

In prison, Abaaoud was in contact with Salah Abdeslam, a Belgian-born French national of Moroccan descent who was also involved in the Paris attack and was a key figure in the Brussels attack on March 22, 2016 that killed 32 people. Abaaoud was linked to Mehdi Memmouche, a French national of Algerian origin who was responsible for the murder of four people in the Jewish Museum in Brussels on May 24, 2014.

ISIS is becoming ever more aggressive. Its images and graphics call on German Muslims to carry out high-profile attacks, like that in Brussels, on significant targets – for example, the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin and the Cologne airport.

The British Daily Mail revealed the most recent attempt at a lone wolf operation in Britain in March 2016. A 25-year-old Muslim named Junead Khan, a driver who delivered pharmaceutical goods, had scouted two U.S. Air Force bases in East Anglia and planned to kill U.S. soldiers in the U.K. The plan was to run his van into a U.S. military vehicle near a U.S. base in Suffolk and then attack the American occupants. At his trial, his uncle testified on his behalf and told the court the Islamic truth: the BBC and Sky television were part of the Zionist conspiracy, together with the diabolic stores Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury, and Tesco, and the usual suspects, the Freemasons and the Illuminati.

Khan's identification with terrorist groups and his connection with individuals in central command of ISIS became clear. Photos showed him posing, wearing what seems a Ralph Lauren (Jewish) shirt, holding the ISIS black flag, and possessing an al-Qaeda bomb manual. After his deed, he was preparing to go to Syria to join ISIS.

More revealing in this story was that earlier, Khan exchanged messages with a man named Junaid Hussain, an ISIS recruiter in central command and a British-born jihadist who was killed in a U.S. drone attack. It became apparent from reading the exchanges that ISIS fighters in Syria have addresses in the U.K. of British servicemen.

For the U.S. and its allies, the lesson to be drawn from the ISIS document is clear. It involves two intersecting policies. Critical vulnerabilities must be identified to undermine the enemy. In practice, more attention must be paid to the "sleeper cells" of ISIS and those attracted to fundamentalist Sunni Islam and those dabbling in crime, by a variety of means – military, police, and above all collaboration in intelligence information. For security, it also means assessing U.S. vulnerabilities that ISIS associates and sleeper cells may attack.

ISIS has given warning, and the U.S. administration must act accordingly.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...its_plans.html
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


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 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum