The main development of CHAMP comes from Boeing, and it appears the project has been underway for several years. The system draws power from a microwave-emitting generator capable of killing electronics with a much higher accuracy rate. Rather than targeting entire blocks or even cities, the CHAMP targets only specific buildings.
In addition to its accuracy, it's also got another advantage; it can fire multiple times, unlike previous EMP devices that can only be used once at a time. In theory, the CHAMP could quickly take out several targeted buildings in rapid succession.
CHAMP is actually the result of three companies' work. Besides Boeing, Raytheon helped build the system's inner electronic workings, and Lockheed Martin built a special surface-to-air missile that delivers CHAMP to its targets. Called the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile — Extended Range (JASSM-ER), it has a range of at least 600 miles and can be used by B-1 and B-52 bombers, F-15 and F-16 and the F-35 stealth fighter.
In a single test mission in Utah, CHAMP successfully blacked out all seven of its targets in a single flight. It clearly impressed the U.S. Air Force, as it's apparently already in use in tactical forces.
Watch this YouTube video of the Air Force Research Lab test of the Boeing CHAMP missile from October 2012:
An Iconoclastpost on October 28, 2012 showed Boeing video of a successful test of a CHAMP missile knocking out a bank of computers. We wrote:
The successful test of a US-directed energy weapon hints at a change in the frequency and impact of future warfare. The new missile proved it can fry an enemy's electronics using radio waves.
On October 16, 2012 a team comprised of members of Boeing’s Phantom Works, Raytheon's Ktech and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate successful conducted a missile test for a weapons system capable of decimating a country’s defenses and critically altering the military balance.
The team, led by Boeing and officially known as the Counter-electronics High Powered Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), held the test at the Utah Test and Training Range. During the hour-long demonstration a cruise missile flew over a target compound and completely disabled the electronic systems of seven targets including a two-storey building by emitting a burst of high powered radio waves.
“This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare,” CHAMP program manager for Phantom Works, Keith Coleman said.
“In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy’s electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive.”
Though the test simulated how a CHAMP missile could be used to shut down enemy radar in advance of a US air attack, hitting targets with non-kinetic energy, the new weapon is officially categorized as a non-lethal weapons system developed under the Future Combat Systems (FCS), which also includes advance robotic systems like autonomous unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).
CHAMP is a directed energy weapon (DEW) that uses high powered microwaves (HPW) in the megawatt range to overwhelm any electronics systems similar to an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) emitted from the detonation of an atomic bomb but without the kinetic force of a bomb.
American Israeli correspondent Jack DeLowe mirrored our own comments in an email exchange:
Imagine Israel using this weapon from their Popeye missile that could be fired from a standoff distance from a submerged Dolphin submarine or in the air from their Hermes Drone. This could be used to not only paralyze the Iranian underground centrifuge facilities, but also to cut off Iran’s radar, missile systems and to cut off their entire communication system.
Given Israel’s high tech development, it would not surprise many of us that it probably its own version of CHAMP in late stages of development.
Israel hardly ever talks about what it has either under development or in its inventory of advanced weapons. There is the SPICE 250 glide bomb developed by Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Ltd. and used against targets in Syria. SPICE stands for Smart, Precise Impact Cost-effective with a range of 100 kilometers.
Watch this YouTube video of Rafael’s SPICE250 glide bomb:
Then there is another Rafael development, the air and submarine launched Popeye Turbo missile. The Popeye Turbo tube launched cruise missiles carried by Dolphin Class submarines which has a range of 1500 kilometers and can be equipped with both conventional and nuclear warheads. Israel just added a fifth Dolphin submarine to its fleet with a Sixth due from German shipyards in 2017. Thus, theoretically, Israel could likely retrofit both air and submarine launched variants of the Popeye Turbots with CHAMP-like warheads. But, as we said earlier, Israel unlike the US doesn’t talk about such developments.
Watch this YouTube video of the air-launched version of the Popeye Turbo missile used by the Indian Air Force:
"Students greeted each other under the flag at University Hall (photo 1) before jubilantly (photo 2) entering the Memorial Church for the Baccalaureate Service. Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister Jonathan Walton (photo 3) served as host, and reminded the graduating seniors that this week is called Commencement not because it’s the end of their college careers, but because it is “only the beginning.”
This latter-day Padishah, Recep Fatih, wanted his very own Dolmabahce or, more exactly, his very own Topkapi. So he built himself a palace, with 1,150 rooms, all in the worst possible taste, but there's no room at Erdogan's inn for good taste, or for law, or for justice. What will the temporarily foiled Erdogan do now? He'll arrest the judges. He'll call them agents of the Americans. Or the Israelis. What else would you expect?
Yet Another Muslim Marriage Ruse To Remain In The West
The West -- the West that is to be hated, but all of its many benefits, including the security, the freedom from violence, that the advanced non-Muslim provides, as well as all the expensive government-supported education, health care, housing -- so sedulously taken advantage of by Muslims have proven so remarkably adept at profiting from every last bit of aid that is on offer, now has another thing to worry about and monitor.
In February, a Jewish college student was hospitalized after being punched in the face at a pro-Palestinian demonstration on a campus in upstate New York. His family has insisted on maintaining the boy’s privacy, but other such incidents, some caught on camera, include a male student punched in the face at Temple University, a female student at Ohio University harassed for defending Israel, and a male student at Cornell threatened physically for protesting anti-Israel propaganda. On three successive days last summer, the Boston police had to protect a student rally for Israel from pro-Palestinian mobs shouting “Jews back to Birkenau!” At the University of California-Irvine, this year’s Israel Independence Day festivities were blocked and shouted down by anti-Israel demonstrators. Every year, some 200 campuses now host a multiday hate-the-Jews fest, its malignancy encapsulated in its title: “Israel Apartheid Week.”
The Louis D. Brandeis Center in Washington, founded in 2011 to protect against such intimidation, has reported being startled by the results of its own 2013-14 survey: “more than half of Jewish American college students [have] personally experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism.” The film Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus faithfully captures scenes of the violence that often attends this new academic experience.
Nor are students the only targets. At Connecticut College, to cite but the most recent example, a quietly pro-Israel professor of philosophy has been maliciously singled out and hounded as a “racist” in a campaign instigated by Palestinian activists, endorsed by numerous faculty members, and at least tacitly complied with by the college administration and the campus Hillel organization. At the annual meetings of prestigious academic associations, boycott resolutions against Israel and Israeli academic institutions are routinely aired and often passed.
As one of its first acts in December 1945, the Arab League called on all Arab institutions and individuals to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume Jewish and Zionist products or manufactured goods. Seventy years later, calls for boycott of Israel, under the acronym BDS—boycott, divestment, and sanctions—have become a staple of American university agendas, extending not only to Israeli companies like SodaStream but to Israeli scholars in the humanities and social sciences. Last year, a petition by “anthropologists for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions” garnered the signatures of the relevant department chairs at (among others) Harvard, Wesleyan, and San Francisco State. The American Studies Association attracted the “largest number of participants in the organization’s history” for a vote endorsing a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
In his introduction to a timely volume of essays, The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel, Paul Berman provides a witty summary of the efforts by university boycotters to frame their campaigns as “modern and progressive” when in fact they are “disgraceful and retrograde.” But the truth is that anti-Semitism never needed a sophisticated veneer in order to win susceptible recruits among the educated and the allegedly enlightened. Urgent as it is to expose the undeniably disgraceful and retrograde nature of the boycott movement, some of its ancillary effects are already playing themselves out in modern institutions and in “progressive” ways.
One of those effects is the scandalous insult—the undreamed-of this!—that cracked the patience of my academic colleague quoted at the head of this article. The “this!” emanated in reports first from UCLA, then from Stanford. At both universities, Jewish students running for election to the student government had been challenged on the grounds that their “strong Jewish identity,” manifested by travel to Israel, made them untrustworthy candidates for office. For my colleague, who had tried until now to treat anti-Israel agitation as a legitimate political activity, this now-naked move to place Jewish students under automatic suspicion for being Jewish made it impossible to maintain any longer the distinction between anti-Zionism (permissible) and anti-Semitism (impermissible). To be sure, there had always been some kind of link between incitement against Jews in Israel and incitement against Jews elsewhere, but how was she now to distinguish between the two when her colleagues, peers, and students blithely insisted on conjoining them?
For the moment, most of the American public seems free—solidly free—of the anti-Semitism that infects American universities. According to the most recent Gallup poll, seven in ten Americans view Israel favorably, up substantially from the 47 percent that viewed it favorably in 1991 around the time of the first Gulf war. It would be hard to imagine greater enthusiasm for a foreign leader than that shown to Benjamin Netanyahu when he spoke at a joint session of Congress in 2011 and again this year. Appreciation for Israel seems secure when the Wall Street Journal, widely considered America’s most influential newspaper, is also its most effective editorial champion of Israel, with the FOX News channel not far behind.
Jewish students running for election to student government have been challenged on grounds that their “strong Jewish identity” makes them untrustworthy candidates for office.
Which is not to say that grounds are lacking for larger concern. In addition to the catalog of academic offenses I’ve briefly summarized here, a growing number of anti-Jewish incidents—from a swastika-desecrated Jewish cemetery in New Jersey to fatal shootings at a Kansas City Jewish community center—has been registered by agencies like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. At the government level, more ominously, and perhaps for the first time in recent American history, it is the White House, rather than the once notoriously Arabist State Department, that has taken the lead in threatening to isolate the Jewish state. President Obama’s frankly contemptuous treatment of Israel’s prime minister smacks more of the university than of the Senate in which he once served, but he is the president, and his words and actions give license to others.
At any rate, the basic truth is this: Israel and the United States, unlovingly paired by their Islamist enemies as the Little Satan and the Big Satan, are prime targets of the same antagonists. It remains to be seen, then, whether the rise of anti-Semitism in America—itself an extension of the Arab- and Muslim-led war against Israel and the Jewish people—will fatally penetrate America’s thick constitutional culture, in which some of us still place our trust.
Universities are the obvious place to begin investigating that question.
I. Anatomy of an Attack
Although no single scenario can represent the workings of the anti-Israel syndrome among the educated, a recent UCLA initiative demonstrates how the movement achieves its goals. The steps go more or less like this:
(1) A consortium of self-declared pro-Palestinian student organizations devises a “statement of ethics” asking candidates for the student council to pledge that, if elected, they will not participate in trips to Israel organized by groups like AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowship on the grounds that these trips are discriminatory or, in student shorthand, “Islamophobic.” (At UCLA, the consortium comprises Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Muslim Student Association, Afrikan Student Union, Armenian Students’ Association, and Samahang Pilipino; at Stanford, the umbrella group is the Students of Color Coalition [SOCC], which is formally aligned with Students Out of Occupied Palestine [SOOP].)
(2) Most candidates at UCLA, and the largest student party, decline to sign the pledge, but among the signers is the student who is elected student-council president.
(3) Before and after the elections, Israel’s defenders on campus urge UCLA’s chancellor to condemn the pledge in the name of the university.
(4) After the elections, in an email to students, faculty, and staff, Chancellor Gene Block (a) offers reassurance that the pledge was strictly a voluntary affair: “No one was barred from running for office, participating in the election, or serving on the council as a result of not signing the pledge”; (b) defends the pledge on the grounds that the core issue is one of free speech: “The decision to circulate this pledge and the choice to sign it or not fall squarely within the realm of free speech, and free speech is sacrosanct to any university campus”; (c) nevertheless goes on to say that he is personally troubled: constitutionally protected speech is not necessarily “wise, fair or productive,” and he is “personally concerned any time people feel disrespected, intimidated, or unfairly singled out because of their beliefs.”
(5) The chancellor’s statement is followed by an expression of “shared concern” from Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California.
On the face of it, the outcome at UCLA might seem to indicate a “win” by the pro-Israel side, since administrators, even if they did not condemn the pledge outright, as they were asked to do, did bring themselves to express a degree of discomfort with it. At least, that is the positive face that the pro-Israel groups on campus chose to put on the affair. A similar sense of satisfaction issued from events at the annual meeting in January of the prestigious American Historical Association, where, after strenuous efforts by pro-Israel members, it was finally decided (by a vote of 144 to 55) not to pursue further resolutions denouncing the Jewish state. Jeffrey Herf, a historian at the University of Maryland who spearheaded the opposition, took rightful pride in reporting that “a group of determined scholars fought the good fight and . . . won far beyond our expectations. . . . The momentum of BDS,” Herf concluded, “runs up against academic integrity and respect for evidence.”
But what kind of a victory is it, and how much integrity and respect for evidence are on display, when every anti-Israel referendum, exhibit, assembly, protest, and campaign reinforces the air of normalcy that this political minuet has acquired? Regardless of their outcome, anti-Israel allegations achieve their aim by negatively singling out the Jewish state from among all others and forcing its supporters onto the defensive. Aggression against Israel is by now reminiscent of the joke that circulated after World War I. The mayor of a town tells his deputy to round up all the Jews and all the bicyclists. The deputy replies: “Why the bicyclists?” Those who don’t get the joke apparently find nothing remarkable about Jews being apprehended. Yet just as it was never “normal” to single out European Jews for roundup, so it is not “normal” to single out Israel for censure.
Regardless of their outcome, anti-Israel campaigns achieve their aim by negatively singling out the Jewish state from among all others and forcing its supporters onto the defensive.
Contrary to the claims of administrators like the chancellor of UCLA, prosecuting the war against the Jews is not an issue of free speech, “sacrosanct to any university campus.” Had UCLA’s chancellor and president faced a campaign to reinstate segregation, recriminalize homosexuality, or bar women from the faculty club, they would have reacted with more than “concern.” Yet behind the banner of free speech, they tolerate, however squeamishly, campaigns to undo the Jewish homeland and to demonize the already most mythified people on earth. Anti-Jewish politics are no more innocent when pursued by left-wing American SOCCs and SOOPs than when they were prosecuted by right-wing European blackshirts.
Indeed, institutions that enforce “sensitivity training” to insure toleration for gays, blacks, and other minorities may inadvertently be bringing some of these groups together in common hostility to Jews as the only campus minority against whom hostility is condoned. On almost every campus in the land, the norms of political correctness are rigorously enforced; punitive speech codes proliferate; a phalanx of administrative functionaries labors so that nothing said, or read, will ever offend the sensibilities of any student—with one licensed exception. Multiculturalism has found its apotheosis in a multicultural coalition of anti-Zionists: a uniquely constituted political phenomenon with its own functions, strategies, and goals.
Surprising as this may sound to today’s activists, freedom of speech and the practice of anti-Semitism are not necessarily bedfellows. Both the United States government and Israeli courts have found ways of drawing the line between liberty and incitement. In the mid-1970s, at the height of the Arab boycott of Israel and at the very time when the Arab-Soviet coalition succeeded in passing United Nations Resolution 3379, which demonized Zionism as racism, the U.S. enacted laws to prevent citizens and companies from participating in other nations’ economic boycotts or embargoes. By prohibiting compliance with the boycott of Israel that had been enforced by the Arab League since 1945, the United States greatly reduced the damage being done to Israel through this branch of warfare.
More recently, the hyper-liberal supreme court of Israel upheld the provisions of Israel’s own “Anti-Boycott Law,” which withdraws accreditation from actors pursuing boycott campaigns by means of false and distorted legal or factual claims. Although the United States is reluctant to thwart American trade, and Israel prides itself on free speech, both recognize that democracies must also protect the freedoms they enshrine.
So, too, universities and the academic community, without limiting the free-speech rights of groups that promote anti-Semitism, whether through BDS or demonstrably false accusations leveled at Jewish students or faculty, could deny them accreditation and university funds. Student groups that justly demand respect for their own particular religions and ethnicities should be held to the same standards of mutual respect that govern formal group behavior toward gays and women. Newton’s first law of motion operates equally in politics: anti-Semitism in motion will remain in motion—and will pick up ferocity—unless stopped by resistant power.
President Barack Obama and Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in Oval Office
This past Memorial Day Weekend Jews observed the Festival of Shavuot (spring harvest festival) celebrating the giving of the law by Moses ( Moshe rabbenu “Moses our teacher” ) to the assembly of ancient Hebrews and others in the exodus multitude gathered under the mountain. Just prior to Shavuot President Obama gave his ‘drash’ (commentary) on relationships with Israel its existential enemies and the Jewish people in two pre-holiday events. The first was his interview with Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg on Israel, ISIS and Iran while the second was his appearance last Friday morning at Washington Conservative synagogue, Adas Israel Congregation ,where he spoke to a gathering 1,200 progressive Jews, including Goldberg. He suggested in his synagogue remarks that some in the progressive American Jewish community consider him perhaps the first “Jewish President”. That would likely support the opinion of Oabma by redoubtable NER colleague, Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein, noted theologian, scholar and author of Jihad and Genocide and other noted post Holocaust works. Rubenstein took the measure of Obama early on in our June 2010 NER interview posted on You Tube calling Obama, “the most radical President ever”. Watch it here.
Some of the reasons I and others find Obama anti-Israel are these:
1. His stubborn attempts to force Israel into a suicidal agreement with the Palestinians.
2. His acceptance (regardless of his words) of a nuclear-armed Iran, and his efforts to stop Israel from acting against it.
3. His open contempt for our Prime Minister.
4. His taking the Turkish president’s side in the Mavi Marmara affair, and forcing PM Netanyahu to apologize to the Turks.
5. His acceptance of Hamas claims that the IDF acted ‘disproportionally’ in Gaza (as shown by his demand for an immediate cease-fire and imposition of an arms embargo during the recent war).
6. The aforementioned leaks about Israeli actions in Syria and elsewhere.
7. His acceptance of the anti-Israel narrative that Israel’s right to exist rests on the Holocaust and that it must be balanced against the rights of the ‘deserving’ Palestinians (as expressed in his 2009 Cairo speech).
8. His attempts to interfere in Israeli politics, including trying to defeat Netanyahu at the polls. It’s ironic that American money was used to help get out the presumably anti-Netanyahu Arab vote — and then Obama bitterly criticized Netanyahu for telling his supporters that they should get out and vote because the Arabs were!
9. The double standard he displays: compare his condemnation of the PM for his election-day remark with his lack of response to the daily barrage of Israel-hatred and veneration of terrorists coming from the official Palestinian media. Or look at his expressed concern for Palestinians suffering the indignities of checkpoints against his failure to mention the almost daily Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism.
I could go on, but this should be enough to show that the belief that Obama is anti-Israel is substantive, not simply a political reflex as he suggests.
Stephens provides additional evidence:
Can there be a rational, negotiable, relatively reasonable bigot? Barack Obama thinks so.
So we learn from the president’s interview last week with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg—the same interview in which Mr. Obama called Islamic State’s capture of Ramadi a “tactical setback.” Mr. Goldberg asked the president to reconcile his view of an Iranian regime steeped in “venomous anti-Semitism” with his claims that the same regime “is practical, and is responsive to incentive, and shows signs of rationality.”
The president didn’t miss a beat. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s strategic objectives, he said, were not dictated by prejudice alone. Sure, the Iranians could make irrational decisions “with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as an organizing tool.” They might also pursue hate-based policies “where the costs are low.” But the regime has larger goals: “maintaining power, having some semblance of legitimacy inside their country,” and getting “out of the deep economic rut that we’ve put them in.”
Also, Mr. Obama reminded Mr. Goldberg, “there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country,” to say nothing of Europe. If the president can forgive us our trespasses, he can forgive the aAatollah’s, too.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that a man with an undergraduate’s enthusiasm for moral equivalency (Islamic State now, the Crusades and Inquisition then) would have sophomoric ideas about the nature and history of anti-Semitism. So let’s recall some basic facts.
Iran has no border, and no territorial dispute, with Israel. The two countries have a common enemy in Islamic State and other radical Sunni groups. Historically and religiously, Jews have always felt a special debt to Persia. Tehran and Jerusalem were de facto allies until 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and 100,000 Jews still lived in Iran. Today, no more than 10,000 Jews are left.
So on the basis of what self-interest does Iran arm and subsidize Hamas, probably devoting more than $1 billion of (scarce) dollars to the effort? What’s the economic rationale for hosting conferences of Holocaust deniers in Tehran, thereby gratuitously damaging ties to otherwise eager economic partners such as Germany and France? What was the political logic to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls to wipe Israel off the map, which made it so much easier for the U.S. and Europe to impose sanctions? How does the regime shore up its domestic legitimacy by preaching a state ideology that makes the country a global pariah?
Rosenthal concluded his column:
Obama does not actually love Israel. Possibly he loves some kind of idealized version of Israel, in which Israelis behave like good Christians, turning the other cheek at terrorism and “taking risks” to the point of sainthood. Of course, such an Israel wouldn’t last two weeks in this Middle East.
What he does seem to believe is that the Palestinian Arabs, like American blacks, are denied civil rights. He believes that this is due to the racism of the Israeli government and Prime Minister; that this is a special case of Western colonialism a la Edward Said; and that Barack Obama ought to use his power to right this ‘wrong’.
For Obama, like Said, the Palestinian Cause is a moral crusade.
Stephens ended his column:
Whether the Ayatollah Khamenei gets to act on his wishes, as Eichmann did, is another question. Mr. Obama thinks he won’t, because the ayatollah only pursues his Jew-hating hobby “at the margins,” as he told Mr. Goldberg, where it isn’t at the expense of his “self-interest.” Does it occur to Mr. Obama that Mr. Khamenei might operate according to a different set of principles than political or economic self-interest? What if Mr. Khamenei believes that some things in life are, in fact, worth fighting for, the elimination of Zionism above all?
In November 2013 the president said at a fundraising event that he was “not a particularly ideological person.” Maybe Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the compelling power of ideology. Or maybe he doesn’t know himself. Either way, the tissue of assumptions on which his Iran diplomacy rests looks thinner all the time.
We will more to say about this in a forthcoming review in the NER of Manfred Gerstenfeld’s latest book on the subject of anti-Israelism as political warfare, A War of a Million Cuts.
Following yesterday’s column on the Christian-Muslim clash of civilizations, some readers were interested in looking at the data in more detail. It’s a worthy exercise, as it allows us to draw a few tentative “red lines” that Western civilization should not cross.
If we look at the democracy index of all 167 nations for which it is available versus the corresponding Muslim population in each country, it is clear that an increasing proportion of Muslims correlates very strongly (i.e., massively statistically significant [p=1e-13, r=-0.53) with a declining democracy index (aka less democracy and more authoritarianism).
The red line is unequivocal: full democracies are effectively absent once the Muslim population reaches 6 percent or higher. The Netherlands currently sits at 6.0 percent. Wonder why Geert Wilders is so concerned? His nation sits on the precipice of a potential slide into increasing authoritarianism.
Other Western nations approaching the red line include Belgium (5.9 percent), Germany (5.8 percent), Switzerland (5.5 percent), Austria (5.4 percent), Greece (5.3 percent), Sweden (4.6 percent), the U.K. (4.4 percent), and Denmark (4.1 percent).
You might ask what the relationship is between Christians and the democracy index. It is the exact opposite of that for Muslims, and even more statistically convincing. There is a stronger correlation (p=5e-22, r=+0.66), except in the positive direction, between the Christian population and democracy.
In general, more Christians equals stronger democracy, whereas more Muslims equals weaker democracy and greater authoritarianism.
The same trends exist for press freedom, which decays quickly once the Muslim population reaches six percent. Another red line.
The highly significant relationship between the Muslim population and press freedom is strongly negative. On the other hand, the significant correlation between the Christian proportion of a nation’s population and its press freedom is strongly positive.
In general, more Christians equals greater press freedom, whereas more Muslims equals less press freedom.
This is science. Actually, the clarity of the results means that it is settled science.
The implications extend beyond domestic policies, particularly with respect to immigration. They also highlight the folly of trying to “democratize” predominantly Muslim regions of the world (as with, say, the recent “nation-building” efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan). The geopolitical facts presented herein show that such efforts are undeniably doomed before they begin on religious grounds alone.
Campaign In Algeria: Be A Real Muslim Man, And Veil Your Women
It's been all downhill since the French left in 1962.
Algeria never attained to the secularism of Tunisia. It had no Bourguiba, but only a Boumedienne, and instead of his Destour Party, the FLN. But it also had forces opposed to the fanatical Muslims; the result was more than a decade of terrorism and war, and hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Now, in Algeria, the campaign to convince Muslim men to veil their women -- including the girls who used to be exempt because of their age -- and forbid the wearing of skirts, is finding success, is going great guns. A telling development.
The Sunnis, who are the majority of the Muslims in the world, believed that they should voluntarily choose Mohammed’s successor. They chose Abu Bakr, the father of Aisha, the ninth wife of Mohammed. Aisha was six years old when she was forced to marry the 50 year old Mohammed.
The Shias on the other hand believed the leadership of the Islamic movement should be hereditary. Mohammed’s closest living male relative was his cousin Ali. Ali became the leader or Caliph of the Shias. Within a decade after Mohammed’s death bloody civil war erupted between Sunnis and Shias. While the war has simmered in certain periods of history it has just as often raged.
We are now living in a period of history where this civil war is raging with unrelenting cruelty and ferocity. Sunni and Shia are killing each other with gleeful abandon in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Pakistan and especially Iraq. Islam is a bloody curse not just on Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, but also on Muslims. The West Point Center on Terrorism states that more Muslims since 9/11 have died at the hands of other Muslims than any other faith group. Sunnis consider Shias as apostates. All Sunni Hadith law demands death for the apostate. (See Reliance of the Traveller, Chapter O, section 8).
Now enter ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). This is a group that is so violent that in February it was disavowed formally by al-Qaida (the folks who killed 3,000 Americans in the 9/11 attacks). That gives you a real indication of the total barbarity of ISIS. The Internet is awash with pictures and videos of these monsters playing soccer with severed human heads, shooting and beheading thousands of Shias and torturing innocent women. You would be hard pressed to find a greater collection of psychopaths on the planet. Where did ISIS finds its role model to authorize these cruel excesses?
Mohammed is considered the role model for all Muslim men both Shia and Sunni. Any act Mohammed permitted in his life is considered permissible (halal) in the life of his followers. Mohammed was a warlord, a murderer, a thief, a slaver and believed in forced child marriages. Islam is the only religion of mankind that does not have some form of the Golden Rule. Islam is about revenge and conquest. It is a supremacist, fascist ideology masquerading as a religion.
Does this adequately explain the 1,400-year-long civil war of Islam between Sunni and Shia?
Does this explain the heartless fiendishness of ISIS? Unlike Vegas, what starts in Iraq won’t stay in Iraq. It will come here!
A sign written in French stating threats against de Wever, who is also the head of the nationalist political party the New Flemish Alliance, was placed on one of the main squares of Antwerp. Experts are currently assessing the seriousness of the action and the message.
“I always warned that we will not get rid of the threat from Islamic extremists in the near future. This was ignored for years. This wound became apparent now with [the current developments in] Syria and will fester for a long time before we will get rid of it,” de Wever said.
Throughout his political career, De Wever has repeatedly received threats. The Belgian government has provided him with security guards at state expense.
One of UK's 'most dangerous' paedophiles was questioned and released by police in 2012
Another Muslim girl sexual abuser and trafficer, caught by Operation Sanctuary. From the Chronicle - HT Mike
Bahmani Ahmadi, from Benwell, went on to abuse a string of youngsters after his release and has now admitted 18 sex offences against young girls.
Bahmani Ahmadi was initially arrested in June 2012 when the first of his young victims came forward. But, the 23-year-old was released with no further action after police failed to examine his mobile phone or refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, a court heard.
And, by the time he was arrested in 2014 and later charged in January this year, Ahmadi had gone on to commit a string of sex offences against more than 10 vulnerable girls, some as young as 11.
The offences include two counts of sexual activity with a 15-year-old, in relation to his first victim in 2012, two counts of sexual assault on two child victims, two counts of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and one count of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity.
He also pleaded guilty to inciting a girl of 17 into prostitution, five counts of inciting children under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity, and five counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity where the victims were 13-16 years old. . .The predator also organised and paid for taxis to transport some of the girls to his home.
He was finally caught when police launched Operation Sanctuary in 2014, a long-running investigation into sexual abuse.
Speaking after the case, Det Supt Steve Barron said Ahmadi was one of the “most dangerous” people he’d come across.
“Ahmadi was identified as a result of intelligence gathered as part of Operation Sanctuary, our pro-active investigation into crimes of a sexual nature against vulnerable women and girls. . . I also believe that there are other potential victims we don’t know about and I want to urge anyone who has been a victim of Ahmadi to come forward. . ."
I was born into an extreme anti-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Israel known as the “Hazon-Ishnikes,” among people who are certain that they are the people closest to God and that they are his only representatives on earth. Simply put, I was born into the elite of the elite of religious Judaism of the day.
Following in the footsteps of my ancestors, a long line of rabbis, I spent every waking moment of my youth studying God’s laws. True, life wasn’t always perfect, especially during the summer months when the heat reached around 100 degrees and I had to walk around with what my teachers taught me were “Jewish clothes” — a woolen black coat and a heavy hat — but other than this, honestly, life was better than perfect.
But then, on one wintry cold day, I got my hands on all kinds of books and pictures and found out that I’ve been lied to. Our “Jewish” black clothes made me look frighteningly similar to the non-Jewish Polish nobles and Austrian bourgeois of a century or two ago; our community’s glorification of virgins was more in line with the thinking in Islamic societies; and the way my rabbis prevented me from engaging with sexuality in any capacity — “Thou shalt never look at females,” they always reminded me — seemed more rooted in Catholicism than in Judaism.
True to my nature as a representative of God, I consulted with heaven and left the ultra-Orthodox fold. I joined the Modern Orthodox world and, in the process, I turned into a fervent right-wing Zionist.
And with the passing of some years I joined the Israeli army.
As a soldier, I felt like a real master. I drove tanks in the desert and I carried a big assault rifle when in the city. One day, as I walked the streets of Jerusalem, believing myself to be the biblical King David, my eyes met those of a young Arab lady in a long white dress standing on the rooftop of her house. There she stood, erect and proud. She stared at me, and then sang lovely Arabic tunes that captured my mind and heart. I stared back at her, a gorgeous beauty with the voice of an angel, and fell in love on the spot. Her song, I promptly concluded, was far more piercing than any of my bullets.
On that very day, I became a leftist, an extreme leftist to be exact, and I fell in love with all Arabs.
Being young and naïve, I thought my new love would run down and rush into the open arms of King David, me.
It didn’t happen. She simply ignored this King.
I couldn’t believe it. How could she not fall in love with a sexy man like me?
Yes, I was sexy!
You see, in those years, young German volunteers came to Israel in droves to help the Jews of the Jewish state, because they felt guilty for what their parents, uncles and aunts had done to the Jews some decades earlier. To them, I was the sexiest man alive because my parents only barely survived the Nazis and most of my family evaporated into the heavens via one crematorium or the other.
Yet, sadly, for the Arab beauty I was nothing special.
It took time but eventually I came to terms with being rejected by the Arab girl — in those days they were “Arabs,” not “Palestinians.” And as the years passed I also gave up my rifle and decided to become a centrist and study in a university.
But my mother, who believed that going to a secular university was the worst thing a Jew could do, couldn’t stop crying when I told her of my decision.
Not wishing to do to my mother what the Nazis started, I left Israel.
That was 33 years ago.
I moved to the USA and spent the next 15 years in various universities, studying everything and anything I thought was interesting. I founded the Jewish Theater of New York, where about 20 of my plays were presented, and I started writing for various American and European media outlets, mainly for the German newspaper Die Zeit.
In late 2012 my book, “I Sleep in Hitler’s Room” (“ Allein unter Deutschen ” in German) — a six-month journey into the psyche of today’s Germans — was published. The book, which documents the shocking depth of anti-Semitism in today’s Germany, became a Spiegel best seller. A year later, my editor asked me if I would be willing to write a book about Israel, using the same “techniques” that I employed in the first book, namely: traveling through the land, looking everywhere and anywhere, talking to everybody and anybody, and then writing about it all, detail by detail.
I accepted and I flew to Israel.
Days and months have passed, and I’m still in Israel.
The Israel I see these days is not the Israel I remember. Gone for example, are the beautiful German volunteers.
No, no, let me be more exact: They are here, the young Germans, but this time around, for the most part at least, they are busy doing things other than feeling guilty. These days, they are very busy teaching Arabs the best ways to fight Jews. Wait. Let me take that back. These German volunteers also feel very guilty for what their grandparents did to the Jews and that’s why, these days, they want to help the Arabs in their fight against Jews.
This may not make much sense to you, but for these Germans, logic doesn’t always play much of a role.
Here’s an example:
I was sitting next to a couple of young German girls at an anti-Israel event held at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, in which we were told that the state of Israel was created by massacring bands of Jews who came over to this part of the world for no obvious reason and slaughtered thousands of sleeping civilians in the middle of the night. The girls applauded.
“Three years ago,” one of them told me, “I volunteered for Israel and I fell in love with the Jewish people.”
“And that’s why you decided to come again?” I asked.
“Three years ago you fell in love with the Jews and that’s why you are now helping the Palestinians?”
She looked at me in disbelief, very upset: “What are you trying to say?”
Yes, the German volunteers have changed. And the Jews have changed as well.
To me, the present-day ultra-Orthodox Jews seem more similar to pagan worshippers of the Bronze Age than to the Poles or Austrians of last century. These days, for example, you can see rabbi after rabbi performing the strangest of “miracles,” like helping people “look attractive” via blessings, in addition to promising their naïve followers “comfortable suites in Heaven,” all for extraordinary fees, of course.
The ultra-Orthodox are not the only ones to have changed. The Modern Orthodox Jews of today, to my surprise, are almost exact replicas of the ultra-Orthodox of my youth. 30 years ago, young Modern Orthodox men and women loved to dance together on Sabbath afternoons. These days, boys are not allowed to touch girls, let alone dance with them.
Today’s leftists have also gone through huge changes. Some run NGOs that are supported by millions upon millions of dollars from foreign donors, and spend their days and nights in pursuit of one dream: to totally destroy this country’s Jewish identity.
“At the end there should be one state here, with one man one vote,” a leftist artist told me.
Since the Palestinians are likely to be the majority of this one state, the Jewish state would cease to exist, correct? I asked.
“I dream of it!” he said.
I have met many people like him who proudly declare that they love Palestinian culture.
Do you speak Arabic? I ask them.
“No,” is the answer I get.
Have you read the Quran, or any other Islamic sources?
“Not yet” is what they tend to say.
It is mind-boggling to me how people who dedicate their lives to preserving Palestinian identity and culture don’t even think of studying this culture.
I studied Arabic, the Quran, the Hadith, and whatever else I could get my hands on, and yet I don’t go around proclaiming my love. The elite Israeli leftists that I meet know Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre and Aristotle, but they don’t know Quran or Hadith, not even Arabic.
Aside from the Jews, there are Arabs here as well of course. Have they changed?
Oh, yes, they have!
The smiles I used to see on their faces 33 years ago has by now totally disappeared. Before Europe and America poured countless amounts of money into various “peace initiatives” here, Arabs and Jews mixed pretty well. It wasn’t paradise, but New York isn’t either. I remember being able to go to Ramallah, Nablus, Bethlehem — just about anywhere. I liked Arab food and Arabic music and I enjoyed both anytime I wanted. Can an Israeli Jew go to Nablus today, to Gaza, to Ramallah?
“There used to be a bus here,” an Israeli man from the southern city of Ashkelon told me, “public bus number 16, and we would go to Gaza. We were on good terms, the Gazans and the Israelis. We worked with each other, ate with each other, and visited each other. Life was different then. Now Gaza is a world apart. We can’t go to them; they can’t come to us.”
I went to the house of one of the most important Palestinian leaders, Major General Jibril Rajoub, a man many Israelis think to be the most moderate of the PLO. “If Hitler woke up from his grave and saw Israel’s brutality, he would be shocked,” he told me.
One of his men, hugging me tightly, said to me: “All of us, all Palestinians, are German.”
They know me here as “Tobi the German,” a name I go by whenever I’m with Palestinians, and they love me, this Aryan man. Had I been Tuvia, a name that would immediately identify me as Jewish, there’s a strong likelihood that I wouldn’t be among the living today. Nowhere in Palestine, or “Area A” in Oslo terms, can you find a single Jew — unless he has been hijacked and, most likely, killed.
Jibril took a liking to me. And, to be honest, I liked him too. He told me that my name shouldn’t be Tobi anymore.
Did this master of Palestinian espionage find out that I’m no Tobi?
By the grace and mercy of Allah, he didn’t. “Your name, from now on, is Abu Ali,” he said to me. Abu Ali, which indicates respect and courage in Palestinian Arabic, is also the name that some Palestinians call Adolf Hitler.
Well, yes: What a difference 33 years make.
How did this change in Arab-Jewish relationship take place? It took me months of roaming the streetsto reveal the presence of people who have worked hard to bring this change into being.
Who are those people?
Sadly, they are the NGO activists who roam this land spreading hatred. They are not the only ones, for there is another culprit: the EU.
To be fair, they’re not the only guilty parties around here. The U.S. Agency for International Development, contrary to many people’s belief, is not made up of righteous people either. But USAID is a small player compared to the Europeans, so let’s stick with Europeans for now.
Surprised? I was. But reality is the best killer of surprises, and the reality here is amazingly poisonous.
If you are a tourist here, or even if you live here, most likely you won’t pay close attention to them. But if you have to write a book about this country and you cannot close your eyes and shut your ears, reality reveals itself.
Did I get this wrong? Let’s check.
Come with me, please, for a trip to Yad Vashem, this country’s Holocaust memorial museum. Many of you have been there and today I’m going there too. Unlike most of you, though, I am going to Yad Vashem on a trip financed by the EU, via a grant by the European Commission.
I join an Italian NGO, Casa per la Pace Milano, which brings young Italians to the land, for the purpose of experiencing Israel first hand. This NGO even hires an Israeli tour guide named Itamar.
“Welcome to Israel, Palestine,” Itamar says, speaking into a mic, and then tells us that he is an “ex-Jew.”
As we walk through the museum, Itamar does his best to turn the World War II story into a contemporary one, making comparisons between yesterday’s Nazis and today’s Israelis.
“In Israel today, Africans are being put into concentration camps,” Itamar says, referring to illegal Sudanese and Eritrean immigrants, who he apparently would have us believe are being burned in crematoriums all over Israel.
As the tour progresses we move to another section of more dead Jews, where a normal visitor to this museum learns about the most potent phase in the mass extermination of millions of Jews. But our ex-Jew has other things on his mind. He says: “What you see here [at Yad Vashem] is all from the perspective of Jewish victims, this is after all a Jewish museum. But what you see here, with the Nazis and the Jews, is also happening today, in Palestine. What happens here in Israel is a Holocaust.”
I’m happy, if I may say so, that my mother is already dead and doesn’t have to hear this.
As a private person, Itamar is entitled to his views. But what’s interesting here is that the EU is paying this “ex-Jew,” a man they should know will speak badly of the Jews, to tour groups — and in Yad Vashem.
And then, there is the Red Cross or, as it’s officially known, ICRC. These are the righteous people of the earth who drive wonderful white vans with little sweet red crosses and are always looking to help needy people.
Well, not exactly.
The people I have encountered from the Red Cross here do more important things than just attending the sick or taking care of people in need. For example: spending resources recruiting and/or supplying Arabs with just the right tools to catch and record the bad Jews roaming this piece of earth. Israel is an occupier, they teach the Arabs, and the Arabs must fight the occupying Jews. When was this land occupied? No, no, don’t say 1967. This land was occupied in 1948.
How do I know this?
No, I haven’t read about the Red Cross in the papers. The media here, I’ve learned the hard way, is not where one finds facts. To find out what the Red Cross people are doing, I joined them on a ride into an Arab city, Jenin, and got to see first hand how they operate.
My day with the Red Cross folks started rather strangely. I showed up at the ICRC offices in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, and boarded the van that would take me to Jenin.
While we were driving, the Red Cross rep talked to me. “When they [Israel] demolish houses, we come together with the PRC [Palestinian Red Crescent] and offer hygiene kits and tents to the people who have just lost their homes. All the buildings in Sheikh Jarrah have vacate orders and Israel will put settlers there.”
This sounds really bad. How many homes have been demolished in Sheikh Jarrah so far? I asked him.
He tried to add them all up in his mind and came up with the exact sum: Zero.
This doesn’t make much sense, but that doesn’t seem to matter. The Red Cross is not even ashamed to share its hateful thoughts in writing — if you’re a German journalist, of course. In an email from the Red Cross, I was told that the Red Cross shares its analysis of human rights issues “with state parties to the Geneva Convention and they follow our reading of the law, with the exception of Israel.”
Israel, apparently, is the only country on earth in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law regulations. Damn Jews.
In addition to foreign NGOs operating in the area, Israeli NGOs are also very active here, though their major source of income comes from abroad. One of the most famous Israeli NGOs is B’Tselem, which is handsomely financed by German sources.
B’Tselem has made public various stories about human rights violations by the Israeli government and the Israeli army. How have they done it? B’Tselem has field researchers, about 10 in all, all of whom are Palestinians.
I met with a B’Tselem research fellow by the name of Atef and he took me to witness firsthand the horrible things Jews have been doing. Sadly, when we reached where the bad Jews were supposed to be, we didn’t actually see any Jews. Instead, Atef introduced me to some locals.
We talked for a while and then suddenly the head of the family accused me, saying that I “pay money to the Jews!”
“When did I pay money to any Jew?” I, Tobi the German, asked.
“Well, not you personally but your people, the Germans,” he said.
I reminded my new friend that we, the Germans, have no choice but pay the Jews because we killed them in WWII.
Atef, the research fellow, interrupted: “This is a lie. I don’t believe it,” he said
The Holocaust, as we all know, is an invention of the Jews.
And the Jews of B’Tselem were calling this man a top researcher.
These stories are just a drop in the bucket of what I found in this land, and by the time I was done I knew what to call my new book: “Catch the Jew!” — three words that tell the modern-day story of Jews, Arabs and the enlightened Western world. When “Catch the Jew!” came out in Israel, Israeli TV stations broadcast a few video clips that I’d given them, detailing some of the stories in the book. One of the clips was about B’Tselem. But B’Tselem denied the report and claimed that the clip was taken out of context. So, I put a longer version of the video clip on Facebook. Only after Haaretz reported that I had quoted B’Tselem’s fellow correctly did the organization finally admit the truth and fired Atef.
But Atef was never the issue. B’Tselem is one of many NGOs operating here, each dedicated to “human rights” and “peace,” but in reality dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel and the delegitimization of its Jewish citizens.
This sounds harsh, I know, but sadly this is the reality.
As you might guess, NGOs cost money, millions upon millions, and somebody has to pay for them. The question is, who?
According to intelligence officers I have spoken with here, the majority of anti-Israel European money sent here comes from Germany. German financing of hateful NGOs is not the only German involvement in anti-Israel activities here. Take a look for a moment at the various German political parties operating here via their party-affiliated foundations. Though they will publicly deny it, they knowingly finance anti-Semites.
As I am about to depart, I ask myself what this country will look like 33 years from now. I’m not sure, as I stopped being God’s representative long ago, but my guess is that if the Germans have their way, in 33 years not a single Jew will be here.
I believe the issue is whether our civilization will survive without marriage and the family as its cornerstone. In my lifetime there has been a concerted attack on our primary social institution which, if marriage is destroyed, the family's disintegration will accelerate and the "atomization" of society will increase. That, or polygamy will become legal (it's the same argument) and women will have lost thousands of years of slow and painful evolutionary progress. Either way, women and children are the losers.
We can grant those legal advantages to homosexual couples without destroying the institution of marriage by granting them marriage. Polygamy will be next and then our civilization will be completely destroyed. But, I suppose, that is the point.
How this became such a hot issue mystifies straight me, given all the larger problems plaguing us. As I first read about it in a neo-conservatives’ magazine, I thought it might have been invented by them--that they exploited some obscure advocate into order to embarrass liberals and Democrats whom the neo-cons thought would embrace it. If so, the neo-con strategy backfired, as more and more political entities approved it.
My hunch about its history was apparently wrong, as a lawyer who happens to be lesbian informs me that, “It's an issue that originated with gay lawyers, Evan Wolfson in particular, who felt all citizens should have a right to the same benefits and entitlements, including the right to marry.”
Her response made me realize that the issue here was not marriage per se but the gaining for homosexual couples the privileges that are afforded heterosexuals legally joined. Among those advantages would be a joint return on income taxes, visitation rights if one partner is hospitalized, statutory inheritance if a spouse dies without a will, continued tenancy under a lease, etc.
May I assume that most of these discriminatory laws originated with groups who for various reasons regard marriage as more socially desirable than unmarriage. However, since most of these groups would not approve of “gay marriage,” my hunch is that their machinations backfired. The most recent blowback victim would be the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Though I don’t disapprove of “gay marriage” per se, I’d sooner favor the dissolution of all privileges and advantages granted to married people. That’s the real and serious issue here.
Jihadi threat requires move into 'private space' of UK Muslims, says police chief
I don't normally link to the Guardian, a left wing newspaper I find particularly patronising and treasonous. But in this case they are the source of the interview with the remaining (other 'most senior' officers having been sacked/imprisoned for corruption) most senior Muslim police officer. That he fears for his own children shows how serious the situation is.
Islamist propaganda is so potent it is influencing children as young as five and should be countered with intensified monitoring to detect the earliest signs of anti-western sentiment, Britain’s most senior Muslim police chief has warned.
Scotland Yard commander Mak Chishty said children aged five had voiced opposition to marking Christmas, branding it as “haram” – forbidden by Islam. He also warned that there was no end in sight to the parade of British Muslims, some 700 so far, being lured from their bedrooms to Syria by Islamic State (Isis) propaganda.
In an interview with the Guardian, Chishty said there was now a need for “a move into the private space” of Muslims to spot views that could show the beginning of radicalisation far earlier. He said this could be shown by subtle changes in behaviour, such as shunning certain shops, citing the example of Marks & Spencer, which could be because the store is sometimes mistakenly perceived to be Jewish-owned.
Chishty said friends and family of youngsters should be intervening much earlier, watching out for subtle, unexplained changes, which could also include sudden negative attitudes towards alcohol, social occasions and western clothing. They should challenge and understand what caused such changes in behaviour, the police commander said, and seek help, if needs be from the police, if they are worried.
Chishty is the most senior Muslim officer in Britain’s police service and is head of community engagement for the Metropolitan police in London. He said Isis propaganda was so powerful he had to be vigilant about his own children. But some will argue that his ideas walk a fine line between vigilance in the face of potent extremist propaganda and criminalising thought.
Scotland Yard has recently said police are making nearly an arrest a day as they try to counter a severe Islamist terrorist threat. . .
The propaganda of Isis was so powerful, the officer said, that he feared his own children might be vulnerable. He said his message to fellow Muslim parents was: “I am not immunised.” “If I feel the need to be extra vigilant, then I think you need to feel the need to be extra vigilant,” he said.
He said he had heard of cases of children seemingly influenced by Islamist views in stable families in which the parents or guardians had moderate views.
In the example of primary school children defining Christmas as “haram”, he insisted this was “factual” and said that while it may not be a police matter, parents and family needed to ask how children as young as five had come to that view, whether it be from school or their friends. Chishty said: “All the ugly bits of the problem, which are uncomfortable, you have to … deal with them properly, as a state, as a nation, as a community.”
And it would help if when a police and crime commissioner reports that girls as young as 5 years old have ambitions to be jihadi brides, such that their parents are now under investigation, the worthies on the local council don't shriek 'scaremongering'. Remember Rotherham.
TWO girls in Southampton as young as five have expressed a desire to running away to join Islamic State (IS) fighters in Syria, according to Hampshire’s police chief. Counter-extremism officers have spoken to the parents of four girls across Hampshire after the children’s comments about becoming jihadi brides were made to authorities. They were approached after it was suspected they had been exposed to radical views in line with those of the militant regime.
Speaking to a newspaper police and crime commissioner Simon Hayes said he was aware of two cases in Southampton and another two eight-year old girls in Portsmouth. “It was picked up that they were making comments around jihadi brides or some sort of comments that indicated that they were getting concepts about jihad. At that young age, the expectation is that it is coming from adults. Their families were approached by the constabulary, and they are being worked with now to try and understand the situation. It is a safeguarding issue primarily. . ."
Leader of Portsmouth City Council Donna Jones called the comments ‘dangerous’ and has sent a letter to the Home Office to complain about Mr Hayes, saying he needs ‘enhanced training’ over issues with national security."We have forged strong links with residents, community leaders and organisations and work is under way to raise awareness of hate crime and extremism, "
Meanwhile, Polly Honeychurch, headteacher of Cottage Primary School – which has a large percentage of Muslim pupils – says she is ‘incensed’ by the remarks. "Sixty per cent of my school pupils come from ethnic backgrounds, and a large proportion of those are Muslim. About half of my Muslim pupils are girls. I haven’t heard a single five or six-year-old Muslim girl saying they want to be a Jihadi bride. . .I am very aware of the Portsmouth Muslims who have been killed in Syria and aware of the families who have been charged with terror offences. . . What Mr Hayes said is scaremongering. We need people to understand different faiths and where people come from."
Dhimmi Democrat Senators want to Admit 65,000 Syrian Refugees Requested by UNHCR
Source: Getty Images
Dhimmi Democrat Senators Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and 12 others have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to admit a flood of 65,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees ‘suggested’ by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Their suggested acquiescence to this UNHCR amounts to fulfilling the Dar al Hijrah imperative in the Hadith (alleged sayings of Mohammed) to use migration to conquer the whole world for Islam. In our upcoming June NER interview with Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch she notes that fully 92 percent of the small number of 800+ Syrian Refugees admitted to the US under the 1980 Refugee Act were Sunni Muslims , the balance were Christians and other religious minorities. Be sure and watch her Center for Security Policy YouTube video which has now reached 5123, 865 hits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PzT8vEvYPg.
How will the DHS under Secretary Jae Johnson vet Syrian refugees in camps in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan when it couldn't do that for Somali, Iraqi and Bosnian refugees letting hundreds if not thousands of terrorist supporters in the US? Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beaconreported Friday that the DHS admitted that several hundred terrorist supporters entered the US illegally, and subsequently were admitted as refugees giving rise to Congressional demands for information and a likely hearing:
Congress is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) release documents detailing how many foreigners seeking asylum in the United States have been found to have ties to terror groups, according to a recent letter sent to the agency by leading lawmakers.
The letter comes on the heels of revelations by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that at least 638 aliens seeking asylum in America have been found to have connections to terrorists.
This “recent disclosure regarding the numbers of aliens found to have a ‘credible fear’ in cases where the terrorism bar to asylum eligibility may have applied raised the concern that hundreds of known and suspected aliens with terrorist connections may be attempting to take advantage of our country’s asylum system,” according to the letter, sent by leaders of four House committees on national security, the judiciary, and government reform.
The USCIS found that “the terrorism bar to asylum eligibility may be applicable to 299 aliens who were found to have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution in the first four months of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, and to 339 aliens who were found to have a ‘credible fear’ in FY 2014,” the lawmakers disclosed.
The Hillreported on the Democrat Senate group support for the flood of 65,000 Syrian refugees nearly double the current allotment of 70,000 refugees from all countries being admitted under the ‘humanitarian refugee program”:
A group of Senate Democrats is urging the Obama administration to allow at least 65,000 Syrian refugees to settle inside the United States.
“While the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees, we must also dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees that we accept for resettlement,” the group of 14 lawmakers — led by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) — said Thursday.
The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration.
“Following the international community’s tragic failure to shelter Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi genocide, the United States played a leadership role in establishing the international legal regime for the protection of refugees,” they wrote. “In keeping with this history, we urge your Administration to work to accept at least 50 percent of Syrian refugees whom UNHCR is seeking to resettle, consistent with our nation’s traditional practice under both Republican and Democratic presidents.”
On the same day, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called the resettlement effort a “serious mistake” because of the security risks it poses.
[The Democratic group of Senators] said they understood the security concerns about the program.
“We must continue to carefully screen refugee applicants for all national security and terrorism concerns, but we urge you to devote sufficient resources and staff to ensure that this process does not hinder resettlement for legitimate refugees, many of whom are living in difficult, even life-threatening, situations,” they said.
Senators concluded by saying “it is a moral, legal, and national security imperative for the United States to lead by example in addressing the world’s worst refugee crisis of our time by greatly increasing the number of Syrian refugees who are resettled in our country.”
The UN suggestion for the US taking in a massive wave of displaced Muslim Syrian refugees coupled the Democratic Senators appeal should vault this issue to the forefront of debate in the 2016 Presidential contenders’ debates. It is past time for Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) , chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and Sen Jeff Sessions R-AL) chair of the Senate Immigration and National Interest Sub Committee to hold oversight hearings on the US Refugee Admissions Program and place a moratorium on UNHCR allotments of refugees from countries that hate us. Gowdy was prompted to write letters to Secretary of State Kerry asking why contractors for the US Refugee Admissions Program have targeted Spartanburg, South Carolina for placement of Syrian refugees in his home congressional district.
Ever since Isil emerged in its current form in 2013, military and and political analysts have been saying that its success is due to its grasp of both tactics and strategy.
Its strategy is essentially Maoist - the comparison has not been enough made, but now that Isil has declared itself an agent of Cultural Revolution, with its destruction of history, perhaps it will be more. Like Mao’s revolutionaries, it conquers the countryside before storming the towns.
Even now, the fact that much of its territory is rural or even desert is seen as a weakness. But it is beginning to “pick off” major towns and cities with impunity. In fact, where society is fractured, like Syria and Iraq, the “sea of revolution” panics the citizenry, making it feel “surrounded” by unseen and incomprehensible agents of doom.
Like Mao, Isil uses propaganda - its famed dominance of social media - to terrorise its targets mentally. Senior Iraqi policemen have recounted being sent images via their mobile phones of their decapitated fellow officers. This has a chastening effect on the fight-or-flight reflex.
It then uses actual terror to further instil chaos. Isil’s main targets have been ground down by years of car bombs and “random” attacks. It seems extraordinary, but one of the reasons given by Mosul residents for preferring Isil rule is that there are no longer so many terrorist attacks: not surprising, since the “terrorists” are in control.
Only once your enemy is weak, divided, and demoralised, do you strike.
You then do so with an awesome show of force - one which can mislead as to the actual numbers involved.
All reports are clear that Pope Francis on meeting Mahmoud Abbas, now in the 10 th year of his four-year term as President of the Palestinian Authority, in the Apostolic Palace of the Vatican on May 17, 2015 gave Abbas a bronze medallion, a gift that the Pope gives all foreign leaders to encourage their commitment to peace. It was explained that the medallion was a symbol represents the angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.
However, it is not clear whether the Pope addressed the Palestinian leader as “an angel of peace.” It is unlikely that he used these direct and controversial words. Even the most fervent abettor of Abbas realizes he may not be an angel. Most probably, Pope Francis, whatever the precise language he used when meeting Abbas, was trying to persuade the Palestinian to pursue the path of peace, as an angel would do.
No one can doubt the good intentions of Pope Francis or his keen desire to contribute to peace between Israel and its neighbors. The Pope already has made his own foray into Middle East diplomacy as a bridge builder for a peaceful resolution between the parties. In June 2014 he hosted a prayer meeting at the Vatican between the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, and President Abbas. The Pope told the two leaders that this was “a great sign of brotherhood which you offer as children of Abraham.” In his meeting in the Vatican on May 14, 2015 with a delegation from the Conference of European Rabbis, Pope Francis stressed that all Christians must be firm in deploring all forms of antisemitism and in showing solidarity with the Jewish people.
However, on May 13, 2015 the Vatican announced an agreement about the functioning of the Catholic Church in areas under the control of the Palestinians. At that time, using controversial language, he referred to his interlocutors as “the State of Palestine.” This can be seen as the first formal recognition of a Palestinian state in an official Vatican treaty.
Four days later the Pope canonized, and made saints of two 19 th century nuns, incorrectly described by much of the mainstream media as Palestinians, for their activity in the Middle East. Both were born when the area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. One was Maryam Bawardy, born in Galilee in the 1840s, founder of the Carmelite convent in Bethlehem. The second was Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas, born in Jerusalem also in the 1840s, founder of the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary of Jerusalem, and the organizer of the first local Arab religious congregation in Jerusalem.
Two issues arise concerning the actions and words of Pope Francis: one is the main, if not the real, problem in obtaining peace between Israel and Palestinians. The second is the relationship between the Catholic Church and world Jewry.
In the discussions between the Pope and Abbas, there appears to be no mention, let alone criticism, of the activities of the Palestinian Hamas movement. It is disturbing that Hamas is eagerly preparing its assets for continuing hostility against Israel. Hopes that Hamas would be disarmed after it had provoked the conflict in the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2014 have been frustrated.
On the contrary, as well as setting up camps that are mainly recreational in character, the armed wing of Hamas has organized a number of military camps in the Gaza Strip, for 17,000 youngsters between 15 and 21 who are trained in close-order-drills, throwing grenades, the basics of explosive devices, and in the firing of Kalashnikov rifles. “Pioneers of Liberation” camps exist for children at various educational levels; registration takes place in mosques in Gaza. The boys are grouped in military battalions, wear paramilitary clothes, black shirts and green berets, and carry weapons.
These military camps have become a more important factor this year because the summer camps organized by the UNRWA were cancelled this year due to financial problems. Youngsters therefore go to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad camps. They are hosted and trained by members who wear khaki camouflage, of the terrorist Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades at Qassam bases.
It is unfortunate that the controversy over the exact words used by Pope Francis comes in the context of changes within the Catholic Church. Undoubtedly, the general if not complete attitude, starting with Pope John XXIII, (1958-1963), of the Catholic Church towards Jews has changed from one of mistrust, at best, to one of benign coexistence. The change is part of the Church’s declared effort to fight against all forms of discrimination based on ethnic background or beliefs.
The passages on Jewish perfidy have been officially withdrawn from the Church Good Friday liturgy. The important declaration Nostra Aetate (In our Time), passed by the Vatican Council and promulgated by Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, is a crucial step towards the repudiation of false charges against Jews. It proclaimed, “God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers.” It rejects the indiscriminate charge of deicide by Jews of today. It decries all displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
Mahmoud Abbas may not be an angel, but he, as the Palestinian leader, should learn the lesson from Nostra Aetate and denounce those expressions and acts by Palestinians and their associates that lead or are intended to lead to violence or acts of terror against Jews, whether inside or outside the State of Israel. He should denounce the assertion, in essence a new form of deicide charge, made by some Palestinian spokespersons that Palestinians are suffering in similar fashion to Jesus. He should flourish the bronze medallion he got from Pope Francis and join the commitment to peace.