Recently in Islamic supremacism Category


Two articles from The National Interest website on the real meaning of Orlando. It was another attack by soldiers of Islam on the United States in Islam's 1400-year war to conquer the world.

The continuing question is why the President of the United States refuses to recognize the threat for what it is.

Orlando Was Not an Act of Hate. It Was an Act of War.

Stuart Gottlieb
June 15, 2016
President Barack Obama responded quickly and forcefully to the horrific mass-casualty attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning, condemning it later that day as "an act of terror and an act of hate." And his eloquent reminder that attacks on any American, "regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation," is an attack "on all of us" of course echoed the most basic truism about what defines Americans as a people.
But perhaps more important than what the president said, is what he still will not say. And it is these omissions that serve as a stark reminder that his administration remains unable or unwilling to speak openly and honestly about the nature of the threat posed by the militant Islamist movements that have grown in strength and number during his time in office. Worst of all, this lack of candor is clearly impacting our ability to effectively fight Islamic terrorism.

Language Matters
First and foremost, the Orlando attack was not an "act of hate"--it was an act of war. Yes, the attacker, a Muslim American named Omar Mateen, specifically targeted America's gay community. But to make that a prime focus of attention exposes a key blind spot for this administration (and for the West in general) regarding the militant Sunni (Salafist) ideology that underpins today's jihadi movements.

For nearly a century, these movements--from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to Jamaat-e-Islami in South Asia, to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS)--have been unabashedly at war against not only the West's undue influence in the Arab and Muslim world, but against Western liberal philosophy in general, specifically the West's open and tolerant way of life. Yet the manner in which Western leaders often choose to characterize the violence perpetrated on behalf of such movements says much about their own Western preferences and biases.

Consider the statement made by Secretary of State John Kerry following last November's ISIS-inspired attacks in Paris against street cafes and a music venue, which killed 130 and injured hundreds more. Kerry described the violence as "absolutely indiscriminate," because it "wasn't to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong." This, he surmised, made it different from the Al Qaeda-directed massacre earlier in the year against the Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was famous for mocking Islam (among many other things); and which he said at least offered the attackers a "rationale" because it was something that made them "really angry."

In fact, to militant Islamists there is no difference between a magazine exercising the right of religious satire and women sitting with men in a Paris café drinking wine, or young people dancing at a rock concert. Just like there is no difference between a gay nightclub that exemplifies liberal tolerance and a World Trade Center that represents global capitalism. They are all equal targets in a war against American and Western global power and liberal ideology.

Secondly, in the aftermath of the Orlando attack, President Obama again doubled-down on his reluctance to simply describe the threat for what it is, out of fear it will spark a backlash against Muslim communities. While this is certainly understandable, particularly in the age of Trump, it is ultimately counterproductive. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide--and especially in the United States--are both moderate and also well aware there are longstanding militant strains within their religion that, unfortunately, have been growing in power and appeal.

But instead of calling it out by name--which would strengthen, rather than weaken America's partnership with the moderate Muslim world--Obama continues to fall back on vacuous descriptions of the threat, as he did on Monday following an FBI briefing. Despite the fact that Mateen had declared his allegiance to ISIS during the rampage, and that Obama himself called it an "act of terror," as to the attacker's motivation the president would say only that it "appears that the shooter was inspired by various extremist information." That would be like saying on December 7, 1941 that Pearl Harbor was attacked by "violent people."

Obama eventually acknowledged what everyone already knew--that Mateen dedicated the attack to ISIS--but he again tried to downplay its meaning, saying it was merely done "at the last minute," and that Mateen was part of no "larger plot." In fact, ISIS online recruiters specifically instruct would-be foot soldiers to not declare their allegiance until the moment of attack (as also seen in the San Bernardino case), to reduce the possibility of preattack detection. And the "larger plot" is the ideology of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other militant Islamist groups dedicated to a global war against apostates in Muslim lands and infidels in the West.

Finally, while some may take comfort that Mateen seemed to have multiple personal triggers pointing him toward radicalization and violence--that is actually the most dangerous part of the story: the more powerful (and seemingly "successful") the Islamist ideology being spun and promoted by ISIS and like-minded groups, the greater the numbers (and diversity) of the recruits it will be able to net across countries and communities, including inside the United States.

Confronting a "Perfect Storm"
The Obama administration continues to insist that any references to warfare, or to the link between Islamic radicalism and today's escalating terrorist threats, simply plays into the hands of the terrorists, by making it appear that "we are at war with an entire religion." But this is actually quite odd coming from a president who has used the most aggressive wartime powers imaginable--such as hundreds of covert drone strikes inside at least eight sovereign countries--killing many thousands of suspected Muslim radicals (along with hundreds of innocent Muslim civilians).

More important, however, is that the strategy of perennially downplaying the threat, or of saying one thing and doing another, is clearly not working. President Obama's own director of national intelligence, James Clapper, recently testified that Sunni militant movements now have "more groups, members, and safe havens than at any point in history," and that radical Islamist networks are currently operating in at least forty countries worldwide. The United States, he said, now faces "the highest threat level since the 9/11 attacks" (and that was prior to the Orlando attack).

What has developed over the past five years is a gathering perfect storm of vast swaths of ungoverned jihadi territory across the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia; tens of thousands of local and foreign fighters being physically trained in jihadi training camps; untold numbers more being inspired and potentially recruited as foot soldiers over social media; and a high-profile strategy by ISIS and other groups to specifically target the West in order to spark a direct military confrontation--with many of the groups openly competing to see which can carry out the biggest and boldest attack that serves as a "tipping point."

Simply admitting that these radical Islamist movements are "at war" against the United States and the West will not solve the problem. Nor will it mean that our responses must be mostly on the military side of the spectrum--indeed soft power, like bridge-building with the moderate Muslim world, and heavy reliance on civilian criminal-justice systems, remains integral.

But it may help us finally recognize that even the best proposals aimed at "preventing attacks" inside the United States--like beefing-up overseas and domestic intelligence, or granting the FBI greater tools to track and detain suspected lone wolves--are merely Band-Aid solutions unless we directly target and ultimately destroy the most capable jihadi groups and the militant Islamist ideology that serves as their inspiration.

President Obama likes to point out that groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS pose no "existential threat" to America. But, as shown in Orlando this week, if left to fester and grow, they do pose a direct threat to America's sense of freedom and way of life. The big question is: what is the "tipping point" for such attacks, and what would the next day look like? It is up to the American president to make sure we never find out.

Stuart Gottlieb teaches U.S. Foreign Policy, Counterterrorism, and International Security at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), where he is also a member of the Saltzman Institute of War & Peace Studies. He formerly served as a foreign policy adviser and speechwriter in the U.S. Senate (1999-2003).

------------------------------------------

Trump's Temporary Muslim Ban Shows He's Serious about Defeating Radical Islam
Ying Ma
June 22, 2016

In the aftermath of the horrific mass shooting in Orlando, President Barack Obama, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and House Speaker Paul Ryan found themselves united in outrage. Unequivocally, they issued their condemnations: "Dangerous," "shameful," and "pathological."

Their target, however, was not the radical Islamic ideology that inspired the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. No, the politicians were referring to GOP presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States. It was yet another example of elevating self-righteousness over reality and delusions over solutions.

Obama, Clinton, Ryan and numerous Trump haters behave as if religion is irrelevant or at best tangential to the bloodbath perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. While leftists like Obama and Clinton would much rather bash Republicans than identify radical Islam by name, Republicans like Ryan act as if blaming radical Islam is enough, and refuse to acknowledge the insidiousness of this evil in the Islamic faith or in Muslim communities in general.

By contrast, the bombastic and undisciplined Trump looks like a profile in courage. After Orlando, he reminded fellow Americans, "Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions." From Paris to Sydney, Fort Hood to Chattanooga, San Bernardino to Orlando, lone-wolf Islamic terrorists have repeatedly proven him right.

Instead of reiterating by rote that Islam is a religion of peace, as Washington politicians do, Trump is raising tough questions about why numerous Islamic governments and Muslim believers are decidedly not peaceful. Thus far, Trump haters have made no honest attempt to offer viable answers.

Perhaps that is because reality can be quite inconvenient. Across the Middle East and wide swaths of Africa and Asia, sharia, Islam's moral code and religious law, reigns. The regimes that subscribe to it do not uphold the freedom of religion, subjugate women as second-class citizens and outlaw homosexuality as an offense punishable by death.

While not every Muslim-majority country governs by these beliefs, the separation of church and state, a key concept enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, is one that numerous experts have declared in conflict with Islam. Furthermore, even moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia recognize Islam as the official state religion, and have enacted domestic laws and policies that restrict religious freedom even though the concept is enshrined in their respective constitutions.

Worse yet, sharia law rears its ugly head right here in America too. By one count, about twenty-six women die each year in this country as a result of Islamic "honor killings" perpetrated by their relatives.

What career politicians refuse to recognize and what Trump intuitively grasps is that the lines between radical Islam and regular Islam are blurrier than they appear. Of course, peaceful and patriotic Muslims have helped built America just like every other immigrant group, but outspoken, moderate Muslims in the West who openly stand up against the dark side of their faith are few and far between. Indeed, polling shows that a majority of Muslims living in the United States wish to have the choice of being governed by sharia law and judged by sharia courts. More disturbing, nearly a quarter of Muslims in America believe it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam.

Meanwhile, just because some Muslims are portrayed as moderate and patriotic does not make them so. For example, President George W. Bush stood with supposedly peace-loving Muslim Americans after 9/11, but one of those individuals was actually the executive director of the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim group that federal prosecutors in subsequent years would name as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to funnel financing to foreign terrorists.

Before the complicated and unsettling reality about Islamic terrorism and its ideology, leaders like Obama and Clinton have routinely opted for political correctness and cowardice. Soon after the president assumed office, his administration ceased referring to this country's war against the jihadists as the "Global War on Terror" and gave it the bland, politically correct moniker of "Overseas Contingency Operation." When a deranged Major Nidal Malik Hasan fatally shot thirteen Americans on an Army base in Fort Hood, the administration designated the attack--carried out in the name of Islam--as an incident of "workplace violence." When ISIS showed the world it was not the "JV team" Obama had described, his administration convened a "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism" and went out of its way to avoid mentioning Islam, a word ISIS has never hesitated to use. Unable to refute Trump for pointing out the administration's political correctness, Obama recently just chose to mock him.

For his part, Speaker Ryan has argued that the smarter way to go than a temporary Muslim ban is to impose "a security test, not a religious test." Given the bloodshed and horror that have been perpetrated in the name of Islam in the modern era and given the infiltration by terrorists of the massive Syrian refugee influx to Europe, Americans can be forgiven for remaining worried and fearful despite Ryan's reassurances.

By contrast, Trump talks bluntly about radical Islam, its insidious influence and its grave threats to the homeland. His temporary Muslim ban may be overly inclusive, but he is not pretending that America's war with radical Islam is merely a security problem.
It is no surprise that Clinton and Obama have eagerly expressed their anti-Trump indignations. The left long ago abandoned any pretense of honesty when talking about race, ethnicity, gender or foreign religions. It is no surprise either to see Ryan engage in regular Trump condemnations. After all, the right has more often than not succumbed to the left's paradigm of identity politics while meekly mouthing objections to the specifics.

Were Trump to cease discussing a Muslim ban but focus on what he began proposing more recently (i.e., temporarily banning immigrants from countries that produce and harbor Islamic terrorists), would the political class talk more honestly about the threats posed by radical Islam in this country?

Of course not. That alone tells us far more about the Trump haters--and the preference for burying their heads in the sand regarding radical Islam--than about Trump himself.

Ying Ma is the author of Chinese Girl in the Ghetto and her website is http://yingma.org.

------------------------------------

In the July 4, 2016 issue of The Weekly Standard, Steve Hayes addresses the same question: Why does the President refuse to recognize the reality of Islam's war on America?


Ignoring Reality

The Weekly Standard
JUL 04, 2016 | By STEPHEN F. HAYES

At 2:35 a.m. on June 12, Omar Mateen called 911 from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. For 30 minutes he'd been on a killing rampage and he wanted the world to know why. He spoke for less than a minute.

"In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent," he began. "Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God." And then he announced: "I wanna let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings." The dispatcher asked for his name. "My name is--I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State." The dispatcher asked again for his name. Mateen said: "I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may God protect him, on behalf of the Islamic State."

In two other calls, both of them much longer, Mateen declared himself an "Islamic soldier" and reported that he was carrying out the shootings in order to avenge the deaths of Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Patience Carter heard one side of those 911 calls from her position near the killer in the bathroom of the Pulse nightclub. "The motive was very clear to us," she told reporters. "Through the conversation with 911, he said that the reason why he was doing this was because he wanted America to stop bombing his country," she said. "So, the motive was very clear to us, who were laying in our own blood and other people's blood, who were injured, who were shot, that we knew what his motive was, and he wasn't going to stop killing people until he was killed, until he felt like his message got out there."

To make sure that message was unmistakable, Mateen posted on Facebook during the massacre. "I pledge my alliance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi .  .  . may Allah accept me," Mateen wrote in one post. "The real Muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west. .  .  . You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes .  .  . now taste the Islamic state vengeance."

This information was available to law enforcement--and to the White House--almost immediately after the attack on the nightclub. And yet, some 36 hours later, when President Barack Obama spoke to reporters, he said that the shooter had pledged loyalty to ISIS only "at the last minute." Obama insisted that the reason behind the slaughter was a mystery: "I think we don't yet know the motivations."

In the days that followed, we learned more about Mateen and his history of radicalism. Mateen's father was a longtime Taliban sympathizer. A decade before Mateen's attack in Orlando, he threatened to shoot a classmate at a cookout when his hamburger apparently touched some pork by accident. Mateen attended a mosque with a Florida man who would later become a suicide bomber in Syria. In part because of that connection, the FBI investigated Mateen twice as a possible jihadist threat. Perhaps the most chilling piece of information to emerge is that Mateen had told coworkers that he hoped to be "martyred" in an FBI raid on his home.

All of which means the president is wrong, and willfully so. We know Omar Mateen's motivation. He was a committed jihadist. He killed in the name of Islam. None of this suggests that there weren't other factors. Perhaps there were. But it's not necessary to understand them all in order to recognize the most obvious.

The Obama administration efforts to ignore inconvenient realities reached the point of self-parody last week, when the Department of Justice released bowdlerized transcripts of the 911 calls the killer made from the Pulse nightclub.

"I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi of the Islamic State" became, after FBI censoring, "I pledge of allegiance to [omitted]."

"I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him, on behalf of the Islamic State" became "I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted]."

The FBI said its redactions were meant to deny ISIS a propaganda victory. But seven years of the Obama administration's non-war on terror point to a different explanation. Truths that complicate Obama's ideological objectives are simply cast aside in favor of his preferred reality.

"Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab confessed to working with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Three days later President Obama described him as an "isolated extremist." When Faisal Shahzad tried to bomb Times Square, then-secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was quick to dismiss it as an amateurish "one-off" attack, never mind the involvement of the Pakistani Taliban.

The president doesn't want to answer for a deadly al Qaeda attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi six weeks before the election? Claim it wasn't al Qaeda and claim it wasn't a planned attack. The Obama campaign doesn't want anything to complicate its 2012 campaign narrative that "al Qaeda is on the run"? Refuse to release the "small college library" full of documents captured at Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. Is the DNI assessment of Iran's involvement in terrorism complicating efforts to win support for a nuclear deal? Simply have them rewrite it and leave out the damning evidence.

State Department leaders don't like video evidence of Fox News correspondent James Rosen catching the spokesman in a lie? Edit it out of the recording. Disagree with the assessments from the intelligence community that some Guantánamo detainees are too dangerous to release? Ignore them and transfer those detainees anyway.

The Obama administration's efforts to shape our perception of the threats we face doesn't make the actual threats go away. And yet the president did it again last week, saying that jihadists pledged to fight and die for ISIS "are not religious warriors." It would be bad enough if he were just trying to fool us. Worse is the possibility that he's fooling himself.

Mark Steyn has been warning about the threat of Islam for more than ten years, hoping his words and those of others would wake up the citizens of the West to the eating away of their civilization and their way of life that was already underway.

But, no, people prefer the illusions peddled by Obama (and before him Bush) that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and there is nothing to worry about.

Obama as recently as yesterday is still marketing that illusion by issuing partial transcripts of the words of the Orlando murderer to the police erasing mentions of Allah and his pledge to the Islamic State.

There are consequences of facing up to the hard facts of reality, so instead, "Let's Keep Dancing."

Mark Steyn filled in for Rush Limbaugh (as he often does) a day or two after the Orlando massacre and in nine minutes captured the meaning of it all in a way that every adult man and woman in the United States (and Europe) should hear and heed:


How to Defeat Jihad

David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat, Palos Verdes, CA, April 8-10 2016

Bruce Thornton

What I want to do is remind us that the war we're talking about has been going on for 14 centuries. It started in the 7th Century A.D. when Muslims conquered the Greco-Roman, Jewish-Christian Byzantine Empire. It conquered places like Egypt.

It's interesting that people say Egypt is the largest Arab nation in the Middle East. Why are there Arabs in Egypt? The guys who built the pyramids, the guys who were Pharaohs, they were not Arabs. They were Egyptians. They, the Arabs, were there as conquerors, as the descendants of conquerors, colonizers and imperialists. They conquered Spain. They held it for 7 centuries until they were driven out. They were defeated in 732 at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel. Fell when they were attempting to move up into France. They continually raided the Rhone River Valley. They occupied Southern Italy and Sicily. They occupied the Balkans.

It wasn't until 1683 that at Vienna, September 11 and 12 -- make what you will of that date -- that they suffered a devastating defeat. And until the rise of modern jihadism they never again challenged Europe. In fact, they began a series of retreats. There's one date that's very interesting and that's 1699. That was the Treaty of Karlowitz. And you say, "Well, what's the big deal about that treaty?" That was the first time a Muslim power ever had to sign a treaty which was to a Muslim disadvantage. In 1798 Napoleon invades Egypt. And the only reason that came to a bad end is the British destroyed his fleet and he abandoned his army. [The Ottoman Empire remained undisturbed --though weakening -- until 1924.]

Ottoman Empire.jpg

1924. Well, what happened in 1924? The dissolution of the Caliphate. When after 9/11, Bin Laden referenced a catastrophe, he wasn't talking about 1948 was he? He said it was 80 years ago. What happened 80 years ago? The dissolution in 1924. The dissolution of the Caliphate.

So in other words, my point is that we are in a war that has been going on for 14 centuries. And the Taliban have a saying, "You have the watch as we have the time." They are in a spiritual -- I'm using that word neutrally -- a spiritual reality in which this century, that century -- Israel's not even 100 years. We can wait. Crusaders were there 200 years, we got rid of them. We are obsessed with the here and now and we think the past doesn't matter. But the past matters very much. And in their mentality this is an ongoing eternal war between the believers and the infidels. And this is where we are at now. We are in a war. A long war.

The second point is what's the nature of the enemy? Now, we all know and I know this group knows because you've had the opportunity to listen to people like Robert Spenser, we know that jihad is a central doctrine of Islamic theology. It is not an aberration. It is not some sort of self-improvement or anything like that. It is a communal obligation of the Muslim people. So we know that. But there's another dimension to the enemy that we have to keep in mind as we go forward in terms of how do we fight this enemy and that is, what's curious about Islam is that it is, as I may, theologized tribalism. It is very tribal. And you can talk about the American Indians. You can talk about the Gauls that Caesar fought, the Germans that Caesar fought, the Britons that the Romans fought.

Any tribal people, they have some similarities. And one of them is the tribe is everything and everybody else is nothing. The tribe is everything and everybody else is nothing.

A lot of tribes don't even have a word for humans. Humans are themselves. Islam follows this. [The tribal Arabs created Islam and made Islam a tribe.] There's the Dar al-Islam, the Dar al-Harb. There's the world of Islam, the believers, and there's the world of war, [everyone else]. That's it.

So they have built in a kind of supremacy as we see in Islam today. Their belief, as Quran 3:110 says, is that they are the best of peoples, that Allah intends to rule the whole world. They really believe that. That's why they're continually at war with the infidels, particularly the infidel West.

There are two other dimensions of tribalism that are, I think, key for understanding this enemy. One is the role of prestige. What I was just talking about, Islam the tribe, that notion that "we" are the important people. We are the ones that deserve to rule the world. It's very different from the ancient Hebrews being the chosen people. They were never told go kill all the gentiles the way the Quran says slay the idolater wherever you find them. That's a huge difference.

But they are universal in their aspirations. And their prestige, their esteem, is huge. For awhile after 9/11 we kept hearing, "Well, you know they feel bad because Europeans have been picking on them and everything." And I think that I wrote at the time that their problem isn't low self-esteem. Their problem is too damn much esteem. Right? They think too highly of themselves. And that needs to be knocked out of them. They need to be humiliated. They need to be convinced that, sorry, in the real world that we live in, you're not so special.

So one of the things that we have to think about is defeating them -- not just defeating them militarily, but humiliating them. Now that's going to sound really kind of archaic and old-fashioned and mean and everything, but you know what, that's exactly what the Allies did in World War II, wasn't it?

The point of unconditional surrender was that they had learned in World War I, when Germany did not surrender there was an armistice signed with its army still in France and Belgium, and they never knew they were defeated. So they spent the next 20 years scheming, long before Hitler came along, to get back to the position that they thought they deserved as the greatest power in continental Europe.

So next time around in World War II they had to be thoroughly defeated and made to know that no, sorry, you're not the super race. Germans do not have a right to rule everybody else. Similar thing happened in Japan and they've been very good global citizens since then.

Now think about it: The Arabs attacked Israel three times, in 1948, 1967, 1973. What price did they pay for those defeats? What Arab capital was bombed, occupied, the way Berlin was occupied? When have they ever paid a price for their aggression? They sided with the Axis powers in World War II. What price did they pay? In Egypt the green shirts, including people like Anwar Sadat, were colluding with the Nazis against the English in the north and then the Americans in the North African campaign. What price did they ever pay for that? They have never, ever in the modern period suffered a mind-concentrating lesson about the stupidity of their beliefs. And then we wonder why they keep coming back and they keep fighting.

So what this means is they have to be defeated militarily, whatever that takes. That means killing a bunch of people. And I know nobody wants to hear that today. Oh, you're just a warmonger; you're a chicken hawk; you're this; you're that. Sorry, that's just the way it's been since humankind were bashing each other's brains out with rocks.

They have to be defeated military. They have to suffer the wages of their aggression. They have to live it every day. Their people have to live it every day until they realize, at least for now, this is a bad idea. We'll still be Muslims, but this whole jihad thing, I think we'll tone it down a little bit. We won't press it too much.

Now what do we [in the West] do? We do the opposite, don't we? Gee, how did we offend you after 9/11? What did we do? And all this nonsense about Sykes-Picot. It's driving me crazy, Sykes-Picot. 1916, Sykes-Picot. Sykes-Picot had nothing to do with what happened in 1918, 1919. But ISIS puts up a billboard in its territory that says, "We will draw our borders, not Sykes-Picot." Sykes-Picot didn't draw the borders of Jordan and Iraq or any of that. That's historical falsity.

So how do we fight this enemy? For one thing, let's get the history straight. Let's get the history of 14 centuries of Islamic aggression and violence against the West straight. Don't let people talk to us about colonialism. There were no European colonies in the Middle East. And I couldn't believe Charles Krauthammer, one of the smartest guys around, was talking about Sykes-Picot and the colonial borders. I threw a shoe at the TV. What are you talking about? That belonged to the Ottoman Empire until 1919. And they're the ones that decided to throw in with the Germans because they thought they could get back their European empire that they had lost in the preceding decades. Has nothing to do with colonialism.

And by the way, don't ever let Islam, [one] of history's most brutal successful imperialist powers, whine to us about imperialism or colonialism. [270 million murdered during their various conquests is one estimate.] Egypt is an Arab colony. North Africa is an Arab colony. Anywhere there's an Arab Muslim outside of the Arabian Peninsula there is a colonist, a descendant of a colonist, of an imperialist or at best an immigrant.

So we shouldn't put up with this false history. First thing, get the history straight. We saw this mistake made by the British in the decades before World War II events -- oh, you know, really, World War I was our fault and we were kind of mean to the Germans. We provoked this huge mistake. Because the Germans were like Muslims back then, [the superior tribe].

Winston Churchill's first two books are great reading and they're a manual of how to fight this war. Not how to defeat jihad, but how do you defeat the enemy that believes in jihad? That's the second one. The first one is a history of the Malakand Field Force. You know, the Brits have India, and where Pakistan and the Afghan border is today, the same people that are the Taliban today, their ancestors were there. Every so often they would start preaching jihad and they'd go on a rampage, and the British had these mobile field forces. They'd send them out there. They'd track them down. They'd kill a bunch. They'd disarm the rest. They'd burn their villages and then they left. They didn't say we're going turn you into a liberal democracy. They didn't say we're going to build schools and have three cups of tea with you, right? They didn't say we're going to liberate your women or convert you to Christianity. No. They didn't say we will ever leave. They didn't put a date certain on it. Everybody knew if you do this again we will be back again. And if you do this forever we will be back forever. Because they understood the nature of the enemy.

And the second, the River War, which is a brilliant book by the way. And as you know, in 1885 a guy called the Mahdi -- now you know from Shia Islam the Mahdi is the messianic figure that's going to usher in, I don't know what he's going to usher in, but anyway. One of these rose up in Khartoum, built a huge army, started attacking the expatriates there, the Europeans. And the famous Charles Chinese Gordon, British general, was there overseeing their evacuation. They overran Khartoum and they killed him in 1885.

It took 13 years, 1898, and the British put together a huge expeditionary force. Churchill got himself to go -- Kitchener didn't want to have anything to do with him because he knew he was a publicity hound; he used his mother's influence. And the big battle at Omdurman near Khartoum took place, and it was a huge slaughter.

And Kitchener went to the tomb of the Mahdi -- he had died before then -- broke the tomb open, dragged the body out and he threw it into the Nile. See, he understood you humiliate and you damage their prestige and you say, if I may quote Bin Laden, "We're the strong horse and you're the weak horse." There was nothing that they wanted there in Sudan. They didn't want to colonize it. There was no oil. There was nothing there they wanted. They turned around and they went back home.

If we don't start getting that mentality, if we keep thinking that we can bribe or negotiate or sweet talk or understand or tell them how wonderful their religion is and how much we love it and do all the things that [we are currently doing], which are absolutely wrong things to do, then if you say, "How to defeat the jihad?" we're not going to defeat jihad. It will be incremental. It will be insidious and at one point in the near future we're going to wake up and we're not going to recognize the country we're in.

Bruce Thornton is a military historian and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

To view the entire panel on this subject, of which the above essay (edited for clarity) is a part, click here.

Freshman U.S. Senator Ben Sasse is a remarkable man. No doubt out of frustration with the equivocations constantly issuing from President Obama about Islam, he decided to go to the site of the Islamic massacre in San Bernardino to speak clearly to the American people about the war in which we are involved.

The war was started by a man named Mohammad in the 7th Century. He declared that he and his followers would conquer the world in the name of Islam and would use all means available to accomplish that goal. Those include terror and all kinds of violence such as murder, rape, beheading, stealing and lying, deceit and trickery. Many of his followers are taking him at his word -- jihadists -- and today ISIS, Boko Haram and other units of Mohammad's army are utilizing violence to seize territory and eliminate those who do not believe that Allah is god and that Mohammad is the messenger of God.

Those who are jihadists or support what those jihadists do are growing in number in the Muslim world, thanks to decades of indoctrination by Saudi money that true Islam is only that as preached and practiced by Mohammad in the 7th Century.

However, there are Mohammad's followers who believe that violence in the long run is counterproductive and instead adopt non-violent means to advance the cause of world conquest. These "stealth jihadists" are strategic, utilizing propaganda, lies, deceit, deception and infiltration of countries by immigration of non-assimilating Muslims and infiltration of governments and positions of influence by believers in Islamic world conquest. It is troubling that those who seem to be "stealth jihadists" nonetheless teach that Mohammad is the perfect man. For example, an imam by the name of Suhaib Webb (who was for a period of time an imam at the Islamic Society of Boston, a known terrorist hotspot for many years) who now works with young people in the Washington, D.C. area, described Mohammad recently in a teaching session as "the best one ever to have lived." (Source: <"http://www.imakespace.com/halaqa-healing-visiting-faith-part-ii/">Link since taken down.)

Finally, there are those Muslims, hopefully the vast majority, who simply worship one god they call Allah and seek to lead good lives and abide by the laws of the lands in which they live, ignoring the commands of the Koran and of Mohammad to conquer and kill and lie in the name of Islam.

The nagging problem many people have is distinguishing one from the others since lying to nonbelievers is acceptable, according to Mohammad.

ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF ISLAM

This Financial Times report below on killings in northern Nigeria "neglects" to identify the attackers and explain their motives. Like all too many of such reports missing are the words "Islam" and its aim to drive all Christians out of the lands in which they live so Islamic control and Sharia can be imposed on those lands and the remaining people.

The plan: Burn the churches, destroy the economy, gun down the Christians they come across and the rest will flee to the south of Nigeria.

Since Boko Haram has begun its murderous campaign in 2009, this article's author estimates that more than 12,000 have been killed, mostly Christians and no doubt some Muslims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In a recent article the claim was made that Boko Haram has killed more people in the last five years than all the other al-Qaeda affiliated groups combined in the Middle East and Africa. While their kill total is impressive, that's probably not so. Muslims are busy killing Muslims in Syria (to say nothing of Iraq) and the estimated death toll there is 200,000, which include many Christians who apparently are being killed by both Sunni and Shiite combatants.

All Muslim "insurgents" or "militants" or "terrorists" are driven by Islam's mandate to conquer all the lands of the world for Allah and convert or kill all the non-believers in the process. When it's Muslims against Muslims, the quarrel is over who will lead the worldwide (or regional or local) drive of supremacy. Violence is always an acceptable "tool," but deceit and trickery and infiltration of societies by non-assimilating immigrants who will out-birth the natives are often more effective weapons of conquest.

And where is the money coming from? In Boko Haram's case, it is Sunni so the money most likely is filtering in from the Saudis. Is the U.S. protesting this flow of money into jihad from our ally Saudi Arabia?

The weapons are in large part coming from the broken nation of Libya which the Obama administration decided to destabilize, resulting in, among other things, the murders in Benghazi of our ambassador and three other Americans who, despite Obama's words about the rationale for rescuing the deserter Bergdahl, were indeed "left behind."

To be sure, not all Muslims are bent on world conquest for Allah, but it is difficult to say who is and who isn't. Since there are some 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, the number who will perform violent acts in the cause of Allah is large. Estimates range up to 25%; that more than 325 million. Even a mere 10% is 130 million.

A poll of Muslims 30 and under in the U.S. found that about 28% thought suicide murders could be acceptable under the "right circumstances." How many are true believers who are quietly working now to establish Sharia in place of the Constitution in the United States? This is the declared goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, to conquer America from within.

Why was Major Hasan Nidal in the Army? How did Hillary Clinton happen to have a Muslim as a top aide at the State Department whose family has been deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood for decades? Where are the Muslims loudly protesting the carnage done in the name of Islam?

What you hear from is Saudi-funded public relations organizations explaining that these people "misunderstand Islam" or have "perverted" Islam. Trouble is, what these misunderstanders are doing is following the letter of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammad.

The article.
Boko Haram kills more than 200 in assault on three Nigerian Christian villages

Jos bombing Boko Haram.jpg

The aftermath of a bomb attack in the city of Jos in May


By William Wallis in London and agencies for the Financial Times
June 5, 2014

Dozens of civilians have been massacred in three villages in Nigeria's remote north east in the latest attacks carried out by suspected Boko Haram insurgents, who are carrying out almost daily atrocities in the region.

Gunmen in combat uniforms on Tuesday rode army trucks through Borno state's Gwoza area, the main stronghold of the terrorist group, firing on villagers and burning houses and churches to the ground, security sources told Reuters news agency.

Other news agencies and local online media outlets cited witnesses suggesting the death toll from the attacks could be as high as 200.

Andrew Tada, a Gwoza man living in Maiduguri, Borno's capital, said he lost two cousins in the attack. He said residents had told him they were preparing to bury 45 people from one village alone.

"It is very sad and the villages are deserted now," he told Reuters. "We are just asking government to give us security to go there tomorrow to evacuate the corpses for burial."

Boko Haram has killed as many as 12,000 people since launching an insurgency in 2009 and grabbed world headlines after it abducted more than 250 girls from a secondary school in the remote town of Chibok in April.

By some estimates more than 560 civilians have been killed by insurgents since April 14 - the day of the abduction and a bus park bomb in Nigeria's capital, Abuja, that killed at last 75 people. In one of the deadliest single attacks, a bomb in the central city of Jos last month killed 118 people, officials said.

The mass kidnapping and bombings have piled political pressure on President Goodluck Jonathan at a critical moment in the electoral calendar, with political tension already heightened ahead of polls scheduled next February.

His government has flip flopped on whether or not it is prepared to negotiate with the militants to secure the release of the girls, amid daily protests at the government's handling of the hostage crisis.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who used to live in Nigeria, paid a visit to Mr Jonathan on Wednesday, to express condolences for the near daily atrocities carried out by the insurgents, who are attempting to carve out an Islamic state from Nigeria's multi-faith and ethnically divided population.

He expressed "sympathy for the struggles and suffering of the recent days" and said he was "deeply saddened by the bombings in Jos" because he knew the city well.

The security source told Reuters about three-quarters of the residents in the three villages near the Cameroon border - Attagara, Agapalawa and Aganjara - were Christians, but he did not know if Tuesday's attacks had targeted them specifically.

US troops are in neighbouring Chad on a mission to find the abducted girls. Britain and France have also offered help, but the Nigerian authorities fear any attempt to rescue them by force could endanger their lives.

Fifty-seven of the 276 kidnapped girls escaped in the early days of the abduction according to officials in the Borno state government.

Boko Haram is an organization of Islamic true believers whose name freely translated means western education is bad. In northern Nigeria it has killed at least 5,000 over the past four years, burned down schools, churches and homes, mostly targeting Christians, seeking to drive them out of their part of the country. Their goal is to impose Islamic rule, Sharia, which controls every aspect of one's life, over everyone under its power. A leader of Boko Haram was quoted recently saying that they were allied with various al-Qaeda groups because they all had the same aim of advancing the "cause of Islam."

Nigeria is Africa's most populous country with the continent's largest Gross National Product. It is rich in resources and badly governed. It is mostly Muslim in the north and Christian in the south.

To fulfill a need for cooks, cleaners and sex slaves Boko Haram attacked a school and kidnapped more than 200 teen aged girls. The government has been unable to find the girls who disappeared with their abductors into the forest. The search is widening, but Boko Haram has threatened to kill all the girls if the effort to rescue them is not stopped.

This report from the All Africa news service gives one a sense of the barbarity of Boko Haram, the ineffectiveness of the government and the somewhat childlike naivety of those brave women who are mobilizing to join the search. Sad. Pathetic. Evil. Also denial: Nothing to do with Islam.

Nigeria: Boko Haram Threatens to Kill Abducted Schoolgirls If Search Is Not Stopped BY JIMITOTA ONOYUME, JOHNBOSCO AGBAKWURU AND NDAHI MARAMA, 24 APRIL 2014 http://allafrica.com/stories/201404240355.html

Hundreds of girls kidnapped from school

NOBEL Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, yesterday, called on the Federal Government to ensure the release of 230 students of Government Girls Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State, who were abducted by members of the Islamic sect, Boko Haram.

Professor Soyinka made the call on a day a coalition of women's rights in Borno expressed their readiness to mobilise thousands of women to embark on a voluntary search and rescue mission into the notorious Sambisa forest, to ensure the release of the abducted students.

Senate President, David Mark, on his part described the abduction of the girls as sacrilegious.

Meanwhile, members of the Islamist sect, Boko Haram, have threatened to kill the abducted students, should the search to recover them continue.

Soyinka tasks FG
Professor Soyinka, who gave the keynote address in Port Harcourt at the opening ceremony of declaration of Port Harcourt as UNESCO World Book Capital 2014, said the focus of the event was for the Federal Government to ensure the safe release of the students.

He said he had expected President Goodluck Jonathan to convene an emergency security meeting over the ugly development in the school after the abduction of the students.

He noted that the ongoing book fair in Port Harcourt was a national rejection of Boko Haram, adding that the Islamic sect does not reflect the teachings and values of Islam.

Minutes after his address, former Minister of Education, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili and the Project Director, Rainbow Book Club, Mrs Koko Kalango led the gathering to make a collective demand for the girls' release.

Storming Sambisa forest
The Borno women, under the auspices of BAOBAB Women's Right, have said they were ready to storm the major hide out of the insurgents in Sambisa forest, where the abducted girls were believed to be held.

Spokesperson for the group, Professor Hauwa Biu, told newsmen that they resolved to embark on the rescue mission when it was evident that no reasonable progress was being achieved in the rescue efforts.

Biu said: "We are ready to go into the forest and search for the girls. In fact, we are prepared to risk our lives and get up to Boko Haram camp and appeal to them to release the children to us so that they can re unite with their parents.

"There is nothing extraordinary in our quest to enter the dangerous forest. We learnt that some men in Chibok had earlier embarked on such mission, which later turned out to be fruitless.

"We felt that as mothers, we are in a better position to have the sympathy and concern over the fate of the missing girls.

"Our target is not to fight the abductors, but we want to beg them to release the girls in the name of the God that we all worship."

The group urged security forces to expedite action in their search and rescue mission of the students so that their parents can have rest of mind.

Biu appealed to security agents to make use of sophisticated weapons in detecting the location of the abductors for easy rescue operation.

She described the abduction of the school girls as inhuman, abuse of human rights, capable of scuttling efforts for enhanced girl child education in the state and the country at large.

She said: "The abduction of the innocent girls violates their human rights, and it is a crime against humanity and prohibited under international humanitarian law.

"Women in Borno strongly condemn this act in its totality as it deprives children their right to learn in a safe environment, thereby jeopardising their future."

Appeal
Biu also appealed to the insurgents to lay down their arms and hold dialogue with the government.

She said: "We wish to appeal to the insurgents to lay down their arms and embrace dialogue. We assure them of our motherly support toward rehabilitating them when the need arises.

"We condemn all other attacks in form of bomb blasts and serial killings all over the country and commiserate with the families of those who lost their relations during the unfortunate incidents.

"We commend the efforts of Borno and Federal governments as well as youths and vigilantes in addressing the current insurgency in the country.

"However, bearing in mind the continuous attacks on schools, we appeal for the provision of adequate security to all schools so as to have a safe learning environment for our children."

It's sacrilegious--Mark
Meanwhile, Senate President, Senator David Mark has described as sacrilegious the abduction of the female students and called for their release.

The Senate President, in a statement by his Press Secretary, Paul Mumeh, in Abuja, yesterday, said the abduction was embarrassing and that no nation that had the desire to develop would indulge in such dastardly act.

He pleaded with the captors to listen to the voices of reason and release the teenagers.
According to the statement, "Senator Mark imagined the harrowing experience the students had been subjected to by their captors and the mental and psychological torture parents and guardians of the students had faced."

He said no nation could justify the abduction of the children whose only offence was that they chose to go to school to better their lots and contribute to the socio economic and political development of their fatherland.

Mark said: "It is a sad commentary and a terrible assault on our psyche as a people. In the good old days of Nigeria this was a taboo and unarguably unheard of."

The Senate President canvassed for synergy between and among security agencies, especially in the area of information gathering and sharing to facilitate their rescue, stressing that the deteriorating situation was making a mockery of the nation.

There are too few leading statesmen in the world urging action against the spread of Islamic imperialism. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered such an urgent warning in London this week.

Islam is a political ideology wrapped in a religious cloak that has as its goal nothing less than the conquest of the world and the elimination of all who do not accept true Islam. In the Koran and in the words and actions of Mohammad there is no doubt but that it is the duty of every Muslim to advance Islam however he or she can, by war, by violent means, by terrorism, by deception and stealth, the methods to depend on what is possible at a given place and time.

In the Middle East warring factions, all with the same goal, but differing as to who should be in charge -- Sunnis or Shiites -- are seeking to advance Islam. In Africa where there are weak governments Islamic terror groups are murdering, burning and pillaging to take over territory and drive Christians and other non-Muslims out. The Islamic invasion of the mostly Christian Central African Republic by heavily armed Islamic fighters has resulted in he deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Christians and other people.

In northern Nigeria alone, Boko Haram has killed over 5,000 in the past four years despite efforts of the Nigerian government to stop them. Last week Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 girls from a school to serve as cooks, cleaners and sex slaves. What is Boko Haram's goal?

Boko Haram is proud to be one of Al Qaeda's African franchises, along with AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and al Shabaab in Somalia. "We are together with al Qaeda," Boko Haram spokesman Abu Qaqa told reporters in Nigeria by phone last November. "They are promoting the cause of Islam, just as we are doing. Therefore they help us in our struggle and we help them, too."

And, in Yemen, a top Al Qaeda leader calmly states that its number one target is America as the most important defender of the principal enemy, Christianity.

We must eliminate the cross," he says, referencing what he sees as Christian power. He adds: "The bearer of the cross is America!"

In the United States itself the FBI has thwarted hundreds of attempted terrorist acts, but, sadly, not the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013 or the murders of fellow soldiers by Major Nadel Hasan at Ft. Hood. There is strong evidence that the U.S. government is being infiltrated by Islamic true believers whose goal is to supplant the Constitution with Islamic law, the Sharia.

Saudi-backed Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Student Association are on many colleges campuses and Washington is home to the notorious Saudi-funded political propaganda operation the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Islamic organization (the Holy Land Foundation) found guilty of funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas.

Fortunately, not all Muslims follow the mandates of the Koran, but just want to live a decent life and worship God. But those who are the most knowledgeable of Islam are potentially the most dangerous if they remain Muslims. They are obliged to treat all non-Muslims as the enemy and to strike against them (us) when conditions are right. When will a quiet Muslim true believer becomes a jihadist? No one can say.

As yet, the U.S. has not been affected to the extent Britain has, with neighborhoods, villages and towns taken over by Muslims and run as if they were in a Muslim country, observing Sharia and keeping non-Muslims out. Similar "no go" zones exist in France. But in Hamtramck, Michigan the Muslim muezzin (call to the mosque) is broadcast throughout the city five times a day. In nearby Dearborn, Michigan the terrorist Shiite organization Hezbollah has many fervent supporters and neighborhoods where non-Muslims are not welcomed.

With heavy immigration and a soaring birth rate, the Muslim population of Europe is approaching 40 million and is a serious problem not only in France and Great Britain, but in virtually all countries of western Europe.

Tony Blair speaks of "denial" about the dangers posed by Islam. Denial is a problem throughout Europe and the United States, starting with Washington, D.C. and the national media.

There is an effort by Muslims and some Islamic apologists to draw a distinction between Islam and what is called "Islamism" and "Islamists." Islamists are the extremists who are said to distort Islam's message. The trouble is that Islamists are taking what is in the Koran and the hadiths (words and actions of Mohammad) as the marching orders they are meant to be. As many others put it, including the prime minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan, "Islam is Islam." In other words, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam," but there are "moderate Muslims."


Tony Blair: Fighting Islamism - The Defining Challenge of Our Time

Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister, delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in London entitled 'Why the Middle East Still Matters.' In it he described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.

He argued "there are four reasons why the Middle East remains of central importance and cannot be relegated to the second order."

The first three: oil, proximity to Europe and Israel, whilst important, were not the focus of the speech. Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and most important reason: Islamic extremism also known as Islamism.

He identifies the conflict in the Middle East as one between an open and tolerant viewpoint and a fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He said "wherever you look - from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria and then further afield to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan - this is the essential battle."

Addressing those who regard these conflicts as distinct he said "there is something frankly odd about the reluctance to accept what is so utterly plain: that they have in common a struggle around the issue of the rightful place of religion, and in particular Islam, in politics."

It is this central point that he hammered home again and again over the course of his 40 minute speech.

He argued that this struggle does not end at the borders of the region. Rather, "The reason this matters so much is that this ideology is exported around the world."

He asked listeners to "Take a step back and analyze the world today: with the possible exception of Latin America (leaving aside Hezbollah in the tri-border area in South America), there is not a region of the world not adversely affected by Islamism and the ideology is growing."

He notes that "The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40m and growing. The Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations are increasingly active and they operate without much investigation or constraint. Recent controversy over schools in Birmingham (and similar allegations in France) show heightened levels of concern about Islamist penetration of our own societies."

The main thrust of the speech focused on "two fascinating things."

"The first is the absolutely rooted desire on the part of Western commentators to analyze these issues as disparate rather than united by common elements. They go to extraordinary lengths to say why, in every individual case, there are multiple reasons for understanding that this is not really about Islam, it is not really about religion; there are local or historic reasons which explain what is happening. There is a wish to eliminate the obvious common factor in a way that is almost wilful."

Predictably, opponents took the opportunity to argue exactly that. For example, the Guardian's summary quoted a Saudi Daily paper which blamed Israel. Commentator Mehdi Hassan blamed Tony Blair himself for the problem, because of the Iraq war.

Blair went on to argue "The second thing is that there is a deep desire to separate the political ideology represented by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood from the actions of extremists including acts of terrorism."

He acknowledged the motivation behind these fears, saying "We feel almost that if we identify it in these terms, we're being anti-Muslim, a sentiment on which the Islamists cleverly play."

Blair swept these distinctions aside, acknowledging the laudable motives behind such interpretations, but ultimately pinpointing the profound danger posed by the Islamist ideology, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.

He urged the West and indeed the entire world, to unite against the ideology Islamic extremism.

Former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane compared the speech to Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain address. Douglas Murray argued in the Spectator that Blair went too far in his efforts to brand Islamism as disconnected from Islam and called on moderate Muslims to help combat radicalism by driving extremists from their communities.

Blair outlined potential foreign policy options for the West vis-a-vis various Middle Eastern countries in order to combat Islamists and to support religiously open and tolerant elements.

In particular he focused on Egypt saying "on the fate of Egypt hangs the future of the region. Here we have to understand plainly what happened. The Muslim Brotherhood government was not simply a bad government. It was systematically taking over the traditions and institutions of the country. The revolt of 30 June 2013 was not an ordinary protest. It was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation."

All of these different policies are facets of the same policy: that "across the region we should be standing steadfast by our friends and allies as they try to change their own countries in the direction of reform. Whether in Jordan or the Gulf where they're promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be supporting and assisting them."

Perhaps this statement by Blair sums up the message of his keynote speech best: "When we consider the defining challenges of our time, surely this one should be up there along with the challenge of the environment or economic instability."

The full text of the speech can be found here.

Grievances are all that Muslims need to justify attacking infidels. Osama bin Laden made that very easy for eager jihiadists, not only compiling a long list of infidel transgressions but advising that the default position of every Muslim should be "oppressed" and free to attack whenever feasible:

It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy, was apparently exasperated that western leaders hadn't really awakened to the fact that Islam was at war with them so he sent a recorded message to Obama in 2008 after he was elected:

[You are] "facing a Jihadi [holy war] awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognise and pretend not to see."

Obama, like President Bush, nonetheless kept up the fiction of Islam being a "religion of peace," perhaps afraid to face the truth that the basic principles of the ideology of 1.3 billion people requires all Muslims to be at war with all non-Muslims.

The same foolishness was recently echoed by Britain's Prime Minister Cameron right after the murder of the off-duty British soldier on a busy London street in daylight:

"This was not just an attack on Britain, and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to this country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

And in late May Obama gave a defense speech claiming the the Global War on Terror was over and it was time to move on. Wishing doesn't make it so.

The reality, as American writer Clare Lopez put it, is this:

The United States is not at war with Islam--but Islam sure is at war with us. And that jihad, by the Dar al-Islam [Abode of Islam] against all of the Dar al-Harb [Abode of War] -- the two worlds into which official Islam divides the world -- is not going to stop unless we capitulate in unconditional surrender to the dictates of Shariah Law.

Nothing has changed in 1400 years except that oil money pouring into Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states has enabled the teaching to generations of young Muslims of what the Koran really says and what Mohammad really demands, namely, jihad, violent if necessary, until the world is subject to Islam. How many true believers are there? No one knows, but most estimates range in the hundreds of millions. When will any one of them now in the West choose to strike after years of seemingly civilized living?

Ms. Lopez agrees with Obama in one respect:

America really is "at a crossroads." In some ways, President Obama's throwing in the towel and calling off the GWOT are going to allow events to speak for themselves, thereby forcing a public reassessment of our failed national security strategy about Islam and the jihad wars.

One wonders how leaders like Obama and Cameron (and George Bush along with virtually every other high government official in the West) can be so blind to the threat to civilized life that can be tracked every day in the news of the world.

The Lopez analysis is worth your time.

Raymond Ibraham principally tracks the persecution of Christians taking place in Muslim majority countries, but also takes note of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims in other countries.

Recently, in commenting on the murder and near-beheading of an off-duty British soldier on the streets of London in broad daylight by two Muslims shouting Alahu Akbar, he laid out what he calls "Islam's Rule of Numbers."


But the greater lesson of the London beheading concerns its audacity--done in broad daylight with the attackers boasting in front of cameras, as often happens in the Islamic world.

It reflects what I call "Islam's Rule of Numbers," a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency: The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world--in this case, brazen violence against "infidels"--appear.(emphasis added)

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon. Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a "religion of peace," and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of "grievances," a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London's butcherers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.... The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Days later in Stockholm, which also has a large Muslim minority, masked rioters destroyed 100 cars and property. The grievance for this particular outbreak was that police earlier shot a(nother) machete-wielding "immigrant" in self-defense.

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians--bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Sudan was an earlier paradigm, when the Khartoum government slaughtered millions to cleanse Sudan of Christians and polytheists. Historically Christian-majority Lebanon plunged into a deadly civil war as the Muslim population grew.

Once Muslims become the majority, the violence ironically wanes, but that's because there are fewer infidels to persecute. And what infidels remain lead paranoid, low-key existences--as dhimmis--always careful to "know their place."

With an 85% Muslim majority, Egypt is increasingly representative of this paradigm. Christian Copts are under attack, but not in an all-out jihad. Rather, under the Muslim Brotherhood their oppression is becoming institutionalized, including through new "blasphemy" laws which have seen many Christians attacked and imprisoned.

Attacks on infidels finally end when Muslims become 100% of the population, as in Saudi Arabia--where all its citizens are Muslim, and churches and other non-Islamic expressions are totally banned.

Such is Islam's Rule of Numbers.

THE ISLAMIST WAR MACHINE KILLS IN ALGERIA

What have we learned from the attack on the natural gas complex in Algeria by "Islamist" militants?

First off, we should learn what an "Islamist" is. An "Islamist" is a Muslim who truly believes what the Koran and Mohammad said and it is his duty to follow those teachings.

The message is simple: It is the duty of every Muslim to spread Islam over the entire world and to convert, subjugate or kill every non-Muslim until Islam rules supreme everywhere.

All means that advance Islam are acceptable, including murder, rape and pillage, as was true for Mohammad and those Islamic leaders who immediately followed his example and is true for the wise men of Islam today.

The New York Times report of the Algerian attack had this illuminating paragraph:

One Algerian who managed to escape told France 24 television late Friday night that the kidnappers said, "We've come in the name of Islam, to teach the Americans what Islam is." The haggard-looking man, interviewed at the airport in Algiers, said the kidnappers then immediately executed five hostages.

President Obama has tried to hide this reality by, for example, ordering all government agencies never to refer to "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same sentence. An Army major killing dozens at Ft. Hood in Texas while shouting "Alahu Akbar" was said to be just an incident of "workplace violence," not Islamic terrorism.

There is a major shift in understanding that must occur: We in the U.S. and the rest of the non-Muslim world are not engaged in a "war on terror" or even a "war on Islam." Islam is at war with us. It has been so for 1400 years and that war presently is expanding as oil money funds the true teachings of Islam and the means to prosecute the war. Islam means war.

Islam is being spread by violence in Africa and other parts of the world. In Africa, Islam is pushing southward from lands on the southern rim of the Mediterranean that have been Muslin since the early Islamic invasions of the 600s and 700s. Mali is in the news today as Algerian, Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian Islamists seek to take over new territory for Islam.

The same has been happening in Nigeria for many years, as Muslims in the north kill and torture Christians and burn their churches, forcing them to flee to the Christian south.

In Sudan, Muslims in the north have fought for decades to conquer the oil-rich south populated by Christians and followers of traditional native religions, killing an estimated 2 million. Even though South Sudan won its independence, the attacks from Islamists in Sudan continue.

Inside a Muslim country such as Egypt, the ascendance into government of the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist to the core, has meant more harassment of the Coptic Christian minority, ranging from killing and kidnapping to destruction of churches and persecution of various kinds. Coptics, who were in Egypt before the Muslims, are fleeing by the tens of thousands.

Christians have been fleeing from Iraq since Saddam Hussein was deposed and only a handful remain.

Persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims in Pakistan is widespread (as is persecution of those Muslims who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi strain of "true" Islam promulgated by the Saudis, who have run madrassas in Pakistan for decades).

In all Muslim majority countries, non-Muslims are persecuted or in danger of persecution up to and including murder. Even a non-Arab Muslim country such as Indonesia, known for its moderation, has sporadic outbreaks of attacks on Christians and one province of the country (Aceh) where Saudi Islamic rules are enforced. Tourist areas bring in money so they are heavily guarded, but deadly attacks nonetheless can and do take place, Bali being a prime example.

The basic problem is that at its core Islam is at war with everyone and everything non-Islamic. The great majority of Muslims may not be engaged in that war, in large part because they have not been as yet fully educated as to what Islam requires of them. The Saudis are as active today in educating Muslims around the world in what true Islam is as they have ever been and more true believers are created every day -- including in every country of Europe, Australia and the United States.

Obama endangers all Americans by misrepresenting this reality.

While focus is on the disastrous course Obama is pushing this nation along domestically, we cannot ignore his pro-Islamic policies that are a threat to the entire West. His speech in Cairo of appeasement and false praise was followed by his support of the anti-western and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt from the pro-America Mubarak.

Now Obama is doing the same thing in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Melanie Phillips is a distinguished British writer whose book "Londonistan" was the earliest of modern alarms about how Islam is infiltrating the West seeking to destroy Western culture and capture Europe from within through immigration and non-assimilation. The Britain she wrote about several years ago is worse today as the Islamic advance has continued unabated aided by those who refuse to see reality. Britain is not alone. The same war of conquest is underway throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, non-violent in some places, aided by violence where Islam is strong enough so it can be.

Phillips sees Obama clearly for what he is:

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.


What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table ...?

Malice.

Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes.


To sum up, what Phillips in effect is saying in this important piece and other warnings she has issued is this:

Obama's hatred of the West, the white West, nurtured from his earliest days by his mother, his years in Muslim schools in Indonesia, his communist high school mentor's hatred of white America, his Marxist and black power associates at Occidental and Columbia and the anti-Israel academics he sought out at Columbia and in Chicago, along with white America-hating Jeremiah Wright and Obama's communist community organizer hero Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the destruction of the America's free enterprise systems, now has free rein. America the oppressor of all colored peoples deserves to be brought down and he is the one to do it. He has the power to do it. And he is doing it.

While speaking of British and European leaders Phillips speaks of catastrophic "mistakes."

But, in her assessment of Obama, she sees America and the West being betrayed. "Malice" is what she sees.

Into the abyss
Melanie Phillips
12.21.12
www.melaniephillips.com


To an astonishing silence by the media on both sides of the pond, the US along with the UK and a number of European governments is leading the west into an abyss. I have repeatedly noted here that the US, UK and France helped bring to power in Egypt Islamic extremists hostile to the free world, and were threatening to do something very similar in Syria. Now they have indeed done so by recognising the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leader of the Syrian opposition.

The thinking behind this is to designate the al-Qaeda linked Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group, while supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - which dominates the Syrian National Council -- as a reasonable alternative. But this is the same catastrophic mistake the US et al have made in Egypt. For the Brotherhood are not a reasonable alternative to Islamic extremists hostile to the west. They are themselves Islamic extremists hostile to the west.

The disastrous implications of this fundamental strategic mistake were spelled out in a forensic piece by Jonathan Spyer in the Jerusalem Post. As Spyer observed:


'The difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups is one of degree, not of kind.

'... The focus on Jabhat al Nusra should not obscure the fact that the better-organized, non-Salafi, home grown, Muslim Brotherhood elements that the US is backing are no less anti-western and no less anti-Jewish.

'Could things have been different? As with Egypt, perhaps, if the west had perceived the risks and opportunities clearly at the start. This might have triggered a vigorous policy of support for non-Islamist opposition and fighting elements, which were there.

'The result is that the force now facing the retreating Assad regime is split between differing brands of Sunni Arab Islamism, some aligned with the west, some directly opposing it, but all holding fast to fundamentally anti-western ideologies.'

Barry Rubin spells out even more starkly the looming disaster for the west from its idiocy over Syria:

'American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.


'One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.'

The mistake being made by the US and the rest is as deep-seated as it is egregious. The campaign in the west to promote the Muslim Brotherhood (to its motto: 'Islam is the solution' one obviously has to ask, 'But what is the problem?') as helpful allies against those who want to bring the west down has been making relentless and dismaying progress into the establishment for years - an establishment that refuses to see the Brothers for what they are, in essence because it refuses to acknowledge that what the west is now up against is a religious war. From that most profound and seminal error, all follows.

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

Just look at Obama's favoured candidates for the two US administration positions central to the defence of the west. They are both people whose attitudes would in fact deeply endanger it still further. John Kerry, tipped to become Secretary of State, is an anti-war activist and left-wing fantasist who, despite serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is such a man-made global warming fanatic that he believes climate change is

'as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about'

ie, as dangerous as say, Syrian chemical weapons or a nuclear Iran.

The record of Chuck Hagel, Obama's favoured candidate for Defence Secretary, is more troubling still, as outlined here. He has consistently downplayed Iran's terrorist record and the danger it poses to the free world. He consistently voted against sanctions on Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability; he voted against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization; and he refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union similarly to name Hezbollah - which has the blood of countless Americans on its hands -- as a terrorist organisation. Instead, he advocates 'engaging' with Iran - ie, appeasement, which he prefers to parse as

' "... a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand" others on the basis of "mutual self respect."'

This is all of a piece with his attitudes towards Israel and the Jews. Not only is he associated with gross anti-Israel canards which reverse truth and lies, but he also said that

'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here...'

'up here' meaning Washington.

Whether or not these men are actually appointed is not the issue. The key point is that Obama wants to appoint them, from which we may infer that he believes they will enact his own vision of foreign and defence policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table as illustrated by these truly appalling choices? Malice. Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes. Factor that into the truly stupendous myopia and worse of Britain and Europe, and you are looking at the emergence of a new world order: the eclipse of the west, brought about by the unholy alliance between the Obama administration and death-wish Britain and Europe - and leaving Israel, once the forward salient of the west in the Middle East, emerging instead as the lonely and isolated defender of liberty in the face of the gathering Islamic storm.

MUSLIMS PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS IN THE U.K.

True believers of Mohammad are embedded in Pakistan's security forces, most notably the intellingence service (ISI). A book published yesterday written by recently murdered Syed Saleem Shahzad recounts how the ISI planned the 2008 Mumbai massacre and handed the plans over to Lashkar-e-Taiba (L-e-T) for execution. Americans were among the hundreds killed and wounded.

Yet the U.S. calls Pakistan an "ally" and showers billions of dollars on the weak government, which itself is infiltrated with hard-core terrorist supporters. Appeasement? Yes. It is an unstable country with nuclear weapons and a danger to the world. No good plan has emerged for dealing with it.

This 99% Muslim, Sunni majority country of 170 million has for generations been "educated" by Saudi imans in what the Koran really requires of Muslims. Saudi-supported madrassas teaching the Koran and little else are more influential than public or private schools and are the prime souce of suicide murderers.

As a consequence, persecution of Christians and other minorities is rampant. As a civilized socienty, Pakistan appears to be sliding backward toward the 7th century more and more every year. Our alliance with India is critical for the years ahead.

ISI scripted Mumbai attack, Qaida cleared it: Shahzad book

NEW DELHI: The 26/11 terror attacks that killed 166 people and brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war was scripted by ISI officers and approved before its execution by al-Qaida commanders, according to a book just written by slain Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad.

The 40-year-old reporter in his book titled `Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taleban -- beyond bin Laden and 9/11' describes the Mumbai plan as one pushed through by Ilyas Kashmiri, a key al-Qaida ally with wide links with the Pakistan defence establishment. Shahzad, who was an authority on terrorism in Afghanistan and the neighbourhood, says in the book that the plan was authored by the Inter-Services Intelligence officers and embraced and executed by Lashkar-e-Taiba.

"With Ilyas Kashmiri's immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal," Shahzad wrote in the book, excerpts of which were published in Karachi's The Dawn newspaper on Wednesday.

Shahzad's friends and family believe the ISI may have had something to do with his kidnapping on Sunday and his death by torture and Shahzad himself had spoken of threats from the ISI. The bureau chief of Asia Times Online was killed days after he had exposed links between Pak navy personnel and al-Qaida, explaining how the devastating attack on the Mehran naval base in Karachi was engineered. He is believed to have been killed for "knowing too much" about how al-Qaida has infiltrated the Pakistani defence forces, sources said. The book, yet unavailable in India, is further proof of the close ties between Pakistani officers and al-Qaida.

"Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza," the book says.

"Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT.

"The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri`s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai on November 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war."

According to a friend of Shahzad, the slain writer and he discussed the militant infiltration in the lower ranks of the defence forces. "He also expressed a fear that there would be a rise in violence as the security establishment is really shaky," the friend was quoted as saying in the Dawn newspaper

Bernard Lewis, the premier Western authority on Islam for many decades, see the era of tyrannies in the Middle East coming to an end. Western-style freedon, tolerance and free speech as a result? Islam westernized? Not likely.

More likely is a return to the consultative process of the Ottoman Empire in which the sultan had to work things out with the various power brokers to get things done.

islam will remain dominant.

He notes the distressing regression taking place in Turkey. In a way, it's a non-violent repeat of the transition in Iran from the secular. The mullah tyranny will be replaced by an Ottoman-style system of governance. Turkey and Iran will be running parallel courses. It's anyone's guess how Islamic fundamentalist fervor will act out. The odds are continuing trouble for the West from an expansionist, fundamentalist Islam.

He has no answer for a nuclear-armed Iran. He thinks a military move would incite patriotism among the opponents, so should not be tried. At the same time, he fears the "fanatic mullahs" who have an apocalypitc end-time vision.

Lewis sees things this way, nuclear holocaust skipped over:

{E}ven as... young Middle Eastern activists rise up against the tyrannies that have oppressed them, he keeps a wary eye on the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. It is particularly challenging because it has "no political center, no ethnic identity. . . . It's both Arab and Persian and Turkish and everything else. It is religiously defined. And it can command support among people of every nationality once they are convinced. That marks the important difference," he says.


"I think the struggle will continue until they either obtain their objective or renounce it," Mr. Lewis says. "At the moment, both seem equally improbable."

That's pretty depressing. Lewis does not see Islam succceding in achieving world domination as decreed in the Koran, but he does not see any wholesale defection of the billion plus Muslims from the creed of Mohammad and the effort to impose Islam on the world.

In other words, Islam will continue sreading through violent and non-violent means as at present with intermittent successes and setbacks. It will keep progressing in its war of expansion as long as the non-Muslims of the world do not resist and mount an effective counterattack to preserve their values. Europe is being swallowed thus far with no resistance by Muslim immigration, procreation and separatism, with not much need of terror. Stealth Jihad in the U.S. is well underway with the government in total denial.

The 1400-year war continues.

'The Tyrannies Are Doomed'

The West's leading scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, sees cause for optimism in the limited-government traditions of Arab and Muslim culture. But he says the U.S. should not push for quick, Western-style elections.
By BARI WEISS in the Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2011
THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
Princeton, N.J.

'What Went Wrong?" That was the explosive title of a December 2001 book by historian Bernard Lewis about the decline of the Muslim world. Already at the printer when 9/11 struck, the book rocketed the professor to widespread public attention, and its central question gripped Americans for a decade.

Now, all of a sudden, there's a new question on American minds: What Might Go Right?
To find out, I made a pilgrimage to the professor's bungalow in Princeton, N.J., where he's lived since 1974 when he joined Princeton's faculty from London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Muslim persecution has driven most Jews and Christians out of Muslim lands. The latest outrages in Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan reflect the pressure of Islam to convert, kill or drive out "the other." Now the number of ever-expanding Muslim clusters in the big cities of Europe are driving Jews out of not-yet Islamic countries.

Is this reversible?

Those waking up to the threat of Islamic ideolology to Europe are still a small minority, but their numbers are spreading. Some national leaders such as Germany's Angela Merkel has acknowledged there's an Islam problem in Germany: Integration has just not happened and there is growing concern about the growth of a parallel Muslim society with its own laws and customs far removed from the traditional one. Organizations such as Stop the Islamisation of Europe are still very small. Many politicians are uncertain how to deal with the problem. Indeed, those on the left are courting Muslim votes, making them a more powerful bloc. A core confusion is about what is Islam? Is it just a religion? Or is it something else? As one Dane observed, it's an ideology of world domination just hiding behind religion. What's clear is that Islam is far more than a religion, it's a political movement dedicated to world conquest as it has been for 1400 years.

The left-wing publication Der Spiegel publishes an extensive account of the stirring that is now occurring in Germany, echoing what's already happening in the Netherlands (thanks to Geert Wilders) and Denmark. Of course, Der Spiegel calls this movement Islamophobia, the texbook definition of which is an unreasonable fear of Islam. What can be more reasonable than a fear of Islamic ideology the goal of which is world Islamic rule under Islamic law.

Even with Spiegel's prejudiced viewpoint, it's an article worth reading.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi is considered by those in the Muslim world as their greatest thinker -- and strategist. Many years ago he helped devise the demographic plan for the Islamic takeover of Europe -- immigration and robust breeding. Now Qaradawi is calling Muslims to deny Christians and animists in southern Sudan their separate country. Years ago, after decades of civil war in Sudan led to the death of millions of southerners at the hands of Muslims, the south was promised the right to vote for their own country. Now Qaradawi is telling all Muslims it's a crime to let them have it. Keep them under the thumb of Islamic sharia and continue to make their lives miserable until they convert or flee. If one needed another example of the relentless drive for universal Islamic rule, here is one. Of course, we also see it every day in the war to recapture the sliver of land called Israel. Once Muslims control a piece of land it is theirs forever. As for lands yet to be conquered, the ever expanding no-go zones and self-created Islamic ghettos -- as in France and Britain -- are doing the job piecemeal.

For Europe to save itself from Islamization, it must reinvigorate its culture and the moral life that has been the hallmark of western civilization. It's deeply troubling when the head of the Church of England exposes his own moral bankruptcy. Who is to rally the British to stand up for right and wrong, for doing the right thing when their religious leaders tells people they are helpless victims of a capitalist society who are powerless to improve their economic let alone their moral situation.

Melanie Phillips brilliantly eviscerates the Archbishop of Canterbury.

AUSTRIAN MP: TAKE YOUR TURKS BACK TO TURKEY

The Turkish ambassador to Austria has been publicly grumbling about the failure of the government to achieve integration of Turkish immigrants at the same time as he is going into Turkish enclaves telling the immigrants not to assimilate or integrate. Apparently he (and other Turkish government officials) have been issuing the same instructions in other countries of Europe as well.

It was only a couple of years ago when Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Erdogan visited Germany and held a mass rally of Turks in a soccer stadium and told them to remain Turks and to think of him as "their" Prime Minister.

Sorry, Angela.

Well, one Austrian legislator (from the opposition, apparently) was fed up and had his say. He says it well.


Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Islamic supremacism category.

Islamic Imperialism is the previous category.

Islamic Terrorism is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.