Given the Zinn-Chomsky version of the Good Old USA promulgated throughout academe, who wouldn’t be ashamed to be an American. The Good Old USA is the cause of it all. The “all” being everything from the destruction and exploitation of native cultures and resources by greedy US corporations to the CIA installing corrupt brutal dictators in South America, the Mideast and South East Asia to military invasion and humiliation of the Ummah (Islamic world). The mess the world is in today, even the insane brutality of ISIS, is the result of American self-perceived exceptionalism and superiority and its resultant cultural imperialism.
Here is one thumbnail sketch of the “progressive-PC” version of the Good Old USA being pumped in the nations re-education camps institutions of higher learning:
Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons.[Kevin Williamson National Review]
By criticizing the moral failures of one’s own country one is in effect announcing one’s own moral superiority. The lure, or part of the lure at least, is that one thereby, in one’s own mind, has risen above the uneducated bigots that suffer from antediluvian patriotism and that one is a world citizen of superior intellect and moral courage.
But even given this mindset the progressive-PC heads can still profess love of country. Indeed it is a higher form of love than the static love of the unprogressive mind. It is love not of what this country is or has been but of what this country can become. Criticism then is seen as the highest form of patriotism and love. Here is Stephen Goldberg of National Review:
Indeed, for eight years under Bush we heard that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” — a profoundly stupid and self-serving bumper sticker of a notion. It’s a very strange understanding of love — and that’s all patriotism is; love of country — that its greatest expression is biting criticism, regardless of said criticism’s merit. For eight years, every calumny and slander imaginable was hurled at Bush and the United States, and whenever anyone pushed back on it, we were told that it was patriotic. We just love our country! Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!
The deeper issue is the “can become” part of progressive “love.“ But what exactly is this vision of what America can become? And just how is that to be achieved? And to what extent is forcing one’s vision on the country warranted?
What dumb questions. If we are all purged of our antediluvian identity/loyalty structures and bigotry the world will transform itself. This is essentially the high conceit of the Frankfurt School at the core of Critical Theory. Once man is liberated from the identity structures of God, country, family, sexual restraint and genderism all will be well. Marcuse (“make love not war” - all will be well) represents the culmination the Frankfurt take-down of traditional identity/value structures. What the PC mindset has added is Orwellian-PC mind control which is part and parcel of the progressive-PC package - the right to inculcate through the education system and the workplace the proper attitudes for its citizenry.
And therein lies the great divide between Burkean Conservatism and Orwellian PC-socialism. In the Burkean version of the “Social Contract” citizens can have whatever loathings and hateful feelings they like - just don’t break any laws. If you wish to be an obnoxious bastard full of hate, have a happy but keep you hands off my property and person. In the Orwellian progressive “big brother” contract the citizens must have an attitude adjustment - they must be brought up to have the right feelings and attitudes and if that means revisionist history and mind control by approved fairy tales and narratives and control of media - so be it. The wonderful world where everybody is shaking fair and getting their fair share awaits us.
And just what are these “right” attitudes? It is whatever is left when one eliminates all the “isms” and “phobias” that the high priests of the PC Ministry can dream up - from sexism to climate change denialism and from xenophobia to Islamophobia and all their unlovely allotropes - all enforced by a system of “tribal” taboos. As stated by Dalrymple, one of the great essayists of our time:
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
PC-love? The love we don’t need. It is not love for those who accept the challenge of freedom to try to be as they would be but love as our PC overlords would have us be.
In a January 5, 2015, article in the Saudi daily 'Okaz, journalist Turki Al-Dakhil condemned the abuse of animals, comparing the culture of animal cruelty to that of the Islamic State (ISIS) and calling on Saudi authorities to pass laws to deter people from harming nature and animals.
Al-Dakhil, who wrote the article in response to a shocking video in Saudi Arabia showing a young man deliberately running over and killing a dog, bemoaned the fact that Saudi society is not fighting this violent culture and warned that anyone who kills animals will end up killing people.
"It is sickening to see a young man enjoy burning a fox, cutting off a cat's tail, torturing a donkey, slowly killing a horse – or the 'latest craze,' running over a dog, as in the [recent] regrettable incident that was harshly condemned, and which [resulted] in merciful people reporting the perpetrator's license plate and car model, leading to his arrest by security forces, which I hope leads to his prosecution.
"The Shura Council and legislative bodies should formulate a proper penal code setting out punishments for anyone abusing animals, cutting down trees, harming nature, or engaging in cruel hunting. These codes should be harsh and deterrent, in order to prevent such barbaric aggression. This culture of violence is embedded [in these young men], and they express it [through brutality] against animals. There is no difference between the culture of daes ['running over' in Arabic] against dogs and animals, and the culture of Daesh [ISIS], which slaughters people like sheep!
"This violent culture, which we are not fighting [although it is present] in our midst, is the basis of such acts, because anyone who kills animals ends up killing people. There is disregard for the lives of animals, and what we see in these videos is merely a fraction of the dozens of such incidents... And this criminal behavior is based on violence.
"A person's education and class are evident in his treatment of nature and animals. [Iraqi writer Muhammad] ibn Al-Marzuban (died in the Hijri year 309 [921 CE]) wrote an entire book titled The Superiority of Dogs over Many Who Wear Clothes, in which he wrote: 'Know that the dog fears for his owner more than a father fears for his son and a brother fears for his brother, since he protects his owner and defends all that is precious to him whether he is present or absent, asleep or awake, and does not neglect [his duty] even if he has not been given water, and does not abandon [his owners] even if they abandon him.'
"Some dogs are more humane than some people. Think about that!"
Banksy, a popular British street-artist, has just issued a new video attacking Israel’s more recent conduct in Gaza. The video, ostensibly presented as a promotional film to attract tourism to Gaza, heavily applies sarcasm from the outset, with statements concerning Gaza’s appeal as a tourist destination, that frame bracketed follow-on points intended to reveal Gaza’s supposed reality.
The video begins by recommending a new destination for tourists: Gaza! It shows Banksy apparently climbing through a tunnel, presumably constructed by Hamas. The video claims that Gaza is…
“Well away from the tourist track (Access is via a network of illegal tunnels)”
“The locals like it so much they never leave (because they’re not allowed to)”
“Nestled in an exclusive setting (surrounded by a wall on three sides and a line of gun boats on the other”
“Watched over by friendly neighbours” (in 2014 Israel destroyed 18,000 homes)
“Development opportunities are everywhere (No cement has been allowed into Gaza since the bombing)”
“Plenty of scope for refurbishment”
An Arab-Palestinian man discusses a street painting of a cat, presumably by Banksy. He repeatedly asks “what about our children?” The “promotional” video then ends with a message painted on a wall:
“If we wash our hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless we side with the powerful — we don’t remain neutral.”
Point and Counterpoint
Despite the fact that Banksy has attacked Israel intermittently over the years, this short and quite unremarkable Youtube video was deemed to be newsworthy. For example, on February 26th, it was featured cyclically on Irish State broadcaster RTE’s “top stories” section of their News Now channel (“Banksy video takes aim at Gaza destruction”), and given a glowingly uncritical reception devoid of any critical analysis.
“Gaza is often described as ‘the world’s largest open air prison’ because no one is allowed to enter or leave. But that seems a bit unfair to prisons — they don’t have their electricity and drinking water cut off randomly almost every day,”
Banksy’s particularly strong criticism is unwarranted. Israel supplies water and electricity to Gaza, along with foodstuffs, medicine, and other items. It also provides medical assistance to thousands of Gazans each year in Israeli hospitals, regardless of political affiliation to Hamas. Israel is not obliged to supply water and electricity to Gaza since the zone involved is not a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention but it still does so to lessen the impact of the maritime embargo. The Palmer Report has found Israel’s maritime blockade to be a legal act due to Hamas’ sustained belligerency.
Ultimately, there would be no blockade if Hamas had not engaged in protracted periods of belligerency, which largely impacts the civilian populace in Southern Israel, just a few miles from the Gaza border. Substantive numbers of civilians have been fleeing Hamas’ belligerency since its election in 2006.
Hamas, as the defacto governing body controlling the region, is the authority responsible for supplying water to Gaza’s populace. Israel transferred control of the water supply infrastructure to the Palestinian Authority, with their withdrawal in 2005, and exceeds its OSLO II 31 MCM water supply obligations, by supplying the Palestinian Authority with increasing amounts of water in more recent years: 52 MCM in 2012, constituting 67.75% more water annually.
Unfortunately, Hamas damaged the supply substantively in the intervening period. It has drilled several hundred wells without authorisation from the joint Israeli-Palestinian water authority, thereby harming water quality. In 2013, Israel doubled its water supply to Gaza, with the construction of a new pipeline. During the 2014 war, Israel continued to supply Gazans with water, and repair damage to the infrastructure.
Hamas’ own actions led to frequent power blackouts over the territory, whilst Israel initiated projects to improve and maintain the electricity supply. In June 2014, Hamas rocket fire damaged the power supply. The many media reports claiming Israel had destroyed the plant were fanciful since it would soon come back on line. During the war, COGAT also imported substantial amounts of fuel for domestic use.
In broader terms, Israel has sponsored several hundred projects to improve conditions in Gaza which ill-befits Banksy’s image of evil Israel.
Banksy appears to suggest that Gaza is surrounded on all sides by Israel, and sarcastically refers to its “friendly neighbours”. Odd then that he makes no mention of Egypt, the other nation that shares a border with Gaza. Egypt intermittently allows passage out of Gaza but prevents the entry of water, electricity and foodstuffs into Gaza. It can be suggested Israel is the party at war with Hamas but Egypt has long been keen to prevent Hamas, a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, from flourishing, and is taking increasingly drastic steps to prevent Hamas and Islamic Jihad from infiltrating the Sinai.
It is surely pure invention to claim that “a line of gun boats” surround Gaza by sea. With the maritime blockade, sea access was restricted from the 13th August 2008 after Hamas instigated further acts of belligerency. A six nautical mile limit for Gaza’s fishermen was established, and temporarily restricted to three miles when hostilities escalated.
Banksy claims 18,000 homes have been destroyed by the 2014 Gaza war. This figure was postulated in August/September 2014 by Arab-Palestinian representatives. Figures are difficult to establish with some estimating as few as 10,000 buildings were destroyed, whilst the UNRWA asserts that 7,000+ homes have been destroyed, doubling its previously held figures during a recent campaign to raise further funds. The UNRWA’s anti-Israel activism is notorious so it is likely that its figures err rather generously. Either way, it is untrue to claim that 18,000 homes have been destroyed by Israel and particularly disingenuous to reveal such a figure without mention of Hamas’ policy of firing from residential areas and placing their fighters inside family homes.”
Banksy claims that tunnels are the only method of access to Gaza. Presumably, this claim is not meant to be taken seriously. However, it does reinforce the imprisonment narrative, whilst presenting to his audience an amusing stance on Hamas’ use of tunnels for black market imports as well as terrorist activities.
It would surely have been intolerable for Banksy’s anti-Israel narrative to have informed his viewers that Hamas use tunnels to conduct terrorist attacks against civilians. The immense amount of cement used in such tunnels has been widely discussed. Hamas diverted thousands of tons of building materials away from the construction of homes and public infrastructure despite apparent supervision by international bodies and aid agencies. The terrorist group continues to do so.
Omitting Hamas from the equation
Perhaps the most notable aspect of Banksy’s video is not so much what it states but the content it leaves out. There is a complete absence of any reference to Hamas, rocket and mortar attacks, Islamist terrorism perpetuated against Israeli civilians etc. In other words, the video provides zero context. There is only space for poignant images of Arabs living in a bomb damaged environment, and instances of Israeli oppression and aggression.
The video’s absolutist dichotomy is reinforced by a total absence of images or footage that includes Hamas. The viewer is not any wiser about Gaza’s governance. In fact, without explanation, the video features a scene of heavily armed IDF, with the words “The locals like it so much they never leave (because they’re not allowed to)”. However, the video footage of the soldiers appears to have been shot in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), because the security barrier is shown in the background. The inclusion of such content may lead to the viewer to believe that Gaza is still occupied by Israel.
By implication, Banksy casts Hamas as powerless, when he wrote “of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless…” This is a normative claim by anti-Israel activists, who excuse Hamas’ belligerency, incitement, and terrorism against a civilian populace which it desires to see exterminated.
Perhaps Banksy should ask which party truly tyrannises the Gazan populace, an Islamist regime that is no longer the territory’s elected representatives, that puts its people in harms way to continue its belligerency at all costs.
Other than shady motivations, what could possibly prompt omissions of Hamas from this narrative?
Any promotional tourist video will of course be expected to present the location being promoted in the most attractive fashion possible. Such videos are expected to be economical with the truth. Banksy’s rather artless faux-tourist video is presented as the opposite. It presents itself as the unpleasant truth confronting the viewer. Unfortunately however, a rich unintended irony occurs since the video features is a string of normative and propagandistic pro-Palestinian falsehoods.
The Arab-Palestinian man who asks “what about our children?”, is perhaps the line that lingers most in Banksy’s video. This is a question that can cut both ways. It has a particular resonance for anyone with a passing familiarity with Hamas’ policy of radicalising the children of Gaza.
It can be argued with justification that, despite all its profound falsehoods, this Banksy reveals a deeper truth — how disingenuously the anti-Israel movement present this complex conflict. Viewers might ask if the echoing of conflict propaganda clarifies ethical matters or merely thickens the fog of war.
"The Islamic world is divided into two main groups. You've got your Sunnis and you've got your Shiites. The more excitable members of these groups have spent the past 1400 years trying to wipe each other out, a process continuing to this very day in Syria and Iraq - and, to a lesser extent, in Auburn and Lakemba.
Auburn and Lakemba, in southwestern Sydney, are Australia's two most heavily-Islamised areas. - CM
'And now there is a third group, possibly larger than both previous groups combined, because it not only draws from the Islamic population, but also from communities with less than direct Islamic connections.
'This is the group united in the belief - or, at least, the stated belief - that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
'It seems counterintuitive, but this crowd gains new members with every latest Islamic atrocity.
'Last week, following Omar Abdel El-Hussein's murderous rampage in Copenhagen, Sanna al-Baitam spoke to Danish television about her former neighbour. "We're not sure it was him who did it," she said. "If it was, it has nothing to do with Islam. He must have been manipulated."
'Yep. Nothing to do with Islam.
'Why, anyone at all could have reason to attack a freedom of speech conference and a synagogue.
'That is, if the person in question is the type who, as Danish media reported, enjoyed discussing Islam, the Israel-Palestinian conflict (i.e. the Jihad against the Jews - CM), and his hatred for Jews.
'The Copenhagen attack followed those other recent nothing-to-do-with-Islam incidents in Paris, which ended with Islamic gunman Amedy Coulibaly's slaughter of four people at a kosher supermarket.
'On the subsequent Friday night the Grand Synagogue in Marais - a traditionally Jewish area of Paris - cancelled its Sabbath services for the first time in 70 years.
'It should give people pause to consider that the last time this occurred, Marais was under Nazi occupation.
'Well, it should give people pause.
'But US evader-in-chief Barack Obama, global leader of the nothing-to-do-with-Islam dodge squad, didn't stop even long enough to identify any possible religious motivation.
Let's enjoy that scathing line again, shall we? - "US evader-in-chief, Barack Obama, global leader of the nothingtodowithIslam dodge squad...". Bravo, Mr Blair, so unlike a certain other Blair with whom we are acquainted. - CM
'Instead, the President characterised Islamic extremists (i.e. fully-instructed, fully-committed Muslims waging jihad - CM) as "violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris."
'Of course, there was nothing random about it, just as there was nothing random about the murder of Charlie Hebdo's staff, who were killed by Islam's self-proclaimed avengers.
'Accuracy of language in these cases is important, for reasons that US columnist Mark Steyn explains:
"Lies beget lies. The Obama Administration insists that the Islamic State is not Islamic, Islamic terrorism is nothing to do with Islam, there's no Islam to see here, no way, no how. You can't hold the line at one lie, and tell the truth on everything else. The lie on Islam infects everything else. If they're just "violent extremists" in general, they have to be violent and extremist in general - or "randomly", as the President would say."
'Recall again the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, hacked to death in a London street by two men who, still carrying blood-drenched knives, announced, "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."
'A couple of ABC (that is, the Aussie ABC - CM) types were upset when I pointed out the billion-dollar broadcaster's failure to notice that comment, or to identify any hint of Islamic motivation.
"Where is your primary and official source that these crimes were carried out in the name of Islam?" they asked. "What proof do you have that these crimes were even carried out by a Muslim man or in the name of the religion?"
'That kind of wilful, desperate ignorance is still on display across much of the global media.
'After the Copenhagen killings, the New York Times ran a headline describing the murderer as "a native son of Denmark".
'The copy claimed that El-Hussein's attacks occurred "at a cafe and near a synagogue".
'The Weekly Standard's Tom Gross was moved to respond:
"It wasn't near a synagogue. It was at a synagogue. The synagogue was the target. Which is why a Jew guarding the synagogue was shot dead. With the New York Times' reporting one starts to understand how Obama and his spokespeople could say the kosher attack in Paris was "random" even though the perpetrator - interviewed live on French radio during the attack - proudly boasted that he had come all the way across Paris in order to kill Jews gathering before the Sabbath."
'Obama was at it again last week, telling a summit on "violent extremism" that Islamic terrorists who kill in the name of Islam have nothing at all to do with Islam.
"We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie, nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek", Obama said. "They are not religious leaders; they're terrorists."
'He continued: "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam".
'The New York Times and similarly-inclined outlets (and far too many non-Muslim heads of state, including our current Aussie PM, alas - CM) may follow Obama's line, but rational people long ago tuned out.
'Sometimes the facts are as obvious as the gun in your face."
And that is where Mr Blair ended his article. It would have been perfect - just the cherry on top - had he added one more sentence, perhaps something like this - "Murderous Muslim attacks on Infidels have everything to do with Islam." But even so, it was pretty good.
There were Comments. Click on the link and check them out, they are interesting. First up is a sarcastic remark to this effect - "Has anyone applied yet to the Macquarie Dictionary to formally change the definition of 'allahu akbar' to "this has nothing to do with Islam"?" In another comment, someone said, "The Quran online [link]. Sign being held up outside the White House recently - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID. This practice needs to happen wherever Obama travels - "IT'S ISLAM, STUPID!"." - CM
The Director Of The Met On What's Happening At The Mosul Museum
Every bit of antiquity that was taken from Iraq, from Syria, from anywhere in the lands where Muslims rule, and brought to the Louvre, the British Museum, the Met, the museums of Turin and Berlin, has been rescued and no one should think of ever sending anything back to a Muslim land.
Here is the Director of the Met on what's been happening in Mosul:
"Speaking with great sadness on behalf of the Metropolitan, a museum whose collection proudly protects and displays the arts of ancient and Islamic Mesopotamia, we strongly condemn this act of catastrophic destruction to one of the most important museums in the Middle East. The Mosul Museum’s collection covers the entire range of civilization in the region, with outstanding sculptures from royal cities such as Nimrud, Nineveh, and Hatra in northern Iraq. This mindless attack on great art, on history, and on human understanding constitutes a tragic assault not only on the Mosul Museum, but on our universal commitment to use art to unite people and promote human understanding. Such wanton brutality must stop, before all vestiges of the ancient world are obliterated."
Thank you to all of you who emailed Clear Channel & Exterion Media. There has been a great response, but the adverts remain and both companies are clearly hoping we will just go away after a day or two.
That is why I am asking you to now increase the pressure and to keep at it.
If you are on Facebook. Please visit Clear Channel's Facebook page and give them a 1 star rating. Leave a comment on their wall telling them you oppose their biased advertising.
Send Clear Channel @ClearChannelIRL and Exterion @ExterionMediaIE a tweet and ask why they run adverts that breach advertising standards and are historically false ?
Most importantly please telephone both companies to complain, We need to keep calling throughout the day and take up as much of their time and energy as possible.
Exterion Media + 353 1 669 4500 Adverts on Buses
Clear Channel +353 1 2611000 Adverts on Bus Shelters & Billboards.
It is also no harm to re send your email and ask why haven't they replied.
In the last 24 hours our Facebook page has been seen by over 110,000 people, thanks to the social media adverts we are running in Dublin.Thank you to those of you who donated and helped to make this happen.We will continue to advertise over the weekend.
Also I have enclosed an info graphic which you may like to tweet and share on social media, but also it was suggested that people try print this graphic as a sticker and put these stickers up in your area.
Director of human rights group CAGE says 'Jihadi John' is a 'kind, gentle and beautiful young man'
The Telegraph has live updates from the press conference of Cage (formerly Cage Prisoners - the islamic organisation for apprehended jihadists)
He is, according to Asim Qureshi of Cage Research Director an "extremely kind, extremely gentle...most humble young person I ever knew". Cage then blame the security services for his radicalisation.
His mosque deny him - A worshipper at the Greenwich Islamic centre who declined to give his name denied all knowledge of Emwazi."By God we don't know him," he said.
His family deny that Mohammed Emwazi is Jihadi John. Neighbours in Maida Vale describe the family as 'nice and normal' In jihadi circles they probably are.
His university is shocked and sickened. Incidently his University, the University of Westminster, intended to host well known hate preacher Haitham al Hadaad tonight, however outrage expressed by concerned citizens persuaded the university governance to have the invitation withdrawn.
Yossi Kuperwasser: The Struggle Over Iran's Nuclear Program
A thorough analysis, and in the last few paragraphs, a discussion of why Netanyahu should, and will, address Congress, and why the Obama Administration is making every effort, each more outrageous and misleading and disgusting and cruel than the last, to stop him -- not because he will make a fool of himself, but because he won't.
What happened to the Hindu (and Jain) temples and temple complexes during the centuries of attempted Muslim conquest, and then the centuries of ultimate Muslim rule? What happened to the churches of Nestorian Christianity, that once extended from the Middle East all the way to China? What happened to the Buddhist statuary of India, intra and extra-Gangem? What happened to every single one of the synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, when held by the Musliim Jordanian Arabs, from 1948 to 1967? What happened to the Sphinx when Turkish Mamelukes were in control, until Napoleon came along to put a stop to it, and incidentally, made Egyptian hieroglyphics safe for study by Champollion, and later by Lepsius and other Egyptologists? What happened to the Buddhist stelae of the Gobi Desert, according to the testimony of many, incuding Mildred Cable? What happened when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, to the pitiful remnants of Greco-Bactrian civilization that secular-minded Afghans, and Westerners with power, had managed to collect and put in the tiny National Museum of Kabul? What happened -- you do remember, don't you? -- to the Bamiyan Buddhas, that required modern explosives, and the know-how of Pakistani engineers, to properly destroy? And what would have happened even to the Pyramids, despite their being tourist attractions and hence a source of revenue, if the True-Bluest of Muslim Believers had, under Morsi or some other agent of the Ikhwan, firmly established their control?
Have I made anything up? Have I exaggerated? How do the Defenders of the Faith think they can continue to deny what Islam has done, what destruction it has wrought? Muslims themselves have been forbidden to paint pictures of human beings, have been forbidden to create statutes, have been forbidden to create music (the most primitive kind of local tribal music has here and there survived, but whenever the most ferocious and devout followers of Islam take control, instruments are smashed, musicians murdered). Islam has not only squelched the means of expression that all non-Islamic societies have permitted, but has encouraged the destruction of the monuments, the art work, the crafts, the everything, of non-Muslims of every variety.
What about it? The Crimes Of Islam Against Civilization are many, and you can see, "in the full light of history," in Mosul at the museum, the same kind of thing that has gone on, here and there and there and there, for 1400 years.
Islamist Threats to the North American Economy and to Jews
On February 21, 2015, one of the lesser known groups of those competing for the Oscar for the greatest global threat of Islamic terrorism made an appearance in the modern form of a video broadcast. The organization calling itself al-Shabaab (The Youth), the Somali affiliate of al-Qaeda, issued a highly professional 77-minute propaganda video calling for attacks on major Western shopping centers in Europe and North America.
The masked speaker in the video, against a background of violent images, claimed responsibility for the September 21, 2013 attack on the Westgate shopping mall consisting of 80 shops in Nairobi, Kenya, where a number of masked gunmen killed 67 people and wounded 175 others. The mall was owned by Israelis, and that at least 4 restaurants in the mall were owned and operated by Israelis.
Speaking with a British accent, he warned that the Westgate event was “just the beginning.” He called on Muslim groups to attack other shopping malls as well as individual shops. He mentioned specific potential targets, and images were shown of some of them: the Mall of America in Bloomington, a suburb of Minneapolis, in Minnesota; the West Edmonton Mall in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; two Westfield shops in central London; and other shops on Oxford Street in London.
The two malls mentioned are among the largest in the world. The West Edmonton Mall, built in 1981, is 5.3 million square feet; the Mall of America, built in 1992, is 4.87 million square feet. The latter, regarded as the world’s busiest mall, attracts 40 million visitors a year and employs 12,000 at its 500 stores, amusement parks, wedding chapel, and 50 restaurants. The Edmonton Mall includes a water park, ice rink, and miniature golf course.
The threats of attack are now being taken seriously by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, especially the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. The malls have taken extra security precautions, including the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, a dispatch center receiving feeds from hundreds of cameras, and a social media monitoring area.
These precautions are essential. During the last five years, al-Shabaab has carried out 600 terrorist attacks, killing more than 1,600 people. Its slaughter continues. On January 22, 2015, an attack was made on a hotel in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, during which a suicide bomber blew himself up. Less than a month later, on February 20, 2015, al-Shabaab attacked another hotel in the capital, killing 25 and wounding 40. Involved in the attack was a vehicle carrying explosives that was driven into the gate of the hotel.
The group, labeled by the US in 2008 a terrorist organization, has attracted individuals from Europe and from the U.S. and Canada by its extensive use of social media for recruiting purposes. It is linked not only with al-Qaeda, but also with Islamic Maghreb and Boko Haram in Nigeria. With its Wahhabi roots, its objective is clear: the creation of a fundamentalist state in Somalia. It is aiming at inspiring followers to strive for this objective.
It is frightening to believe that a relatively small number of Islamic fighters by their threats can strike terror into the hearts of would-be shoppers and could bring major shopping to a standstill, an occurrence that could cause a disruption in the US economy. Fear is understandable for at least one of the malls in the coincidence that the city of Minneapolis has the U.S.’s largest Somali population. More than 20 U.S. Somalis have left to join Shabaab, and another 15 have left to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
The key factor, neglected in all the mainstream media reporting on the Shabaab threats, is that the mall in Kenya that was attacked, and those in Alberta and Minnesota that are being threatened, were built by and are owned by Jews, the Triple Five Group. The name of the Group refers to the late founder, Jacob Ghermezian, who came in the 1940s to the U.S. from Iran, where he had started a business at age 17 in 1919, and his four sons, who grew up in Canada. It began by importing and selling Persian carpets. They bought real estate and then expanded interests in the shopping malls, banking, mining, and oil. The founder claimed he had hosted the Tehran Conference in November-December 1943 at which Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin discussed coordination of Allied military strategy against Nazi Germany and Japan.
The question therefore has to be asked if the activity of Shabaab is another manifestation of terrorist threat against Jews. If so, the question becomes more compelling in view of the threat to the ambitious project of Triple Five in developing the American Dream Meadowlands Mall, alongside the New Jersey Turnpike, in East Rutherford. The Group took over the project in 2010 after progress had been stalled under previous developers. They plan an ambitious mall. Present plans contemplate more than 400 retail shops and restaurants, a skating rink, an indoor amusement park, 20 movie theaters, and a 500-room hotel. With an estimated 9,000 construction jobs and 35,000 permanent jobs, this new mall will contribute to the recovery of northern New Jersey.
If this is so, the governor of the State of New Jersey, as well as all law enforcement agencies, must take action to protect the Meadowlands Project. The sad reality is that al-Shabaab, like other Islamist terrorist groups, is trying to stir up hatred against Jews as a tactic for an attack on Western civilization. By preventing Shabaab from carrying out its threatened attacks, law enforcement will not only save countless lives, but also help foil the promotion of anti-Semitism.
What If Edvard Beneš Had Addressed The British Parliament In September 1938
What if Winston Churchill had managed to persuade other Members of Paliament to invite the President of Czechoslovakia, Edvard Beneš, to speak about Herr Hitler, and Germany, and what an agreement made with Hitler might be worth. What if Edvard Benešhad explained that Hitler had clearly set out his views in written form -- not only in Mein Kampf but also in Mein Kampf -- and in a steady stream of speeches, from 1933 on, speeches whose contents were easily available. What if he had explained the role of Konrad Heinlein, the leader of the Sudeten Gemans, who was instructed to create incidents that would then lead to suppression by the Czech police and army, and that could be represented as the "brutal supression of the Sudeteners and the denial of their right to self-determinatiion." Hitler spoke about self-determination for "the Sudeteners" often; the only others for whom he expressed a similar interest in their "self-determination" were "the Arabs of Palestine." What if Edvard Beneš had explained that the Czech defenses were powerful, but they were also placed all along the Czech frontier, that is in the very Sudetenland that Hitler was demanding be given up, knowing that those powerful Czech defenes would then be under the control of ethnic Germans? Perhaps it would have had no effect, because of Chamberlain, who he was, what he had to be. But perhaps -- it is possible -- the lucidity of his exposition, the Sachichkeit of his expression, would have made things clearer to some, as clear as they were to Winston Churchill. And the President of Czechoslovakia, the country most affected and mortally endangered by an agreement, being made over its head by the then-leader of Great Britain, with France the chief guarantor of Czechoslovakia's securty, certainly had not only a right but a duty to explain the nature of the threat -- which he had seen grow and grow, for the Czechs were paying close attention to Herr Hitler and his regime, far more than the British did between 1933 and 1938 -- in order to try to save his country.
Is the analogy false? Is it exaggerated and even melodramatic? How?
Jihadi John: Middle Class, College Educated Briton
(Reuters) - The "Jihadi John" killer who has featured in several Islamic State beheading videos is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a middle class family who grew up in London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming, the Washington Post newspaper said.
In videos released by Islamic State (IS), the masked, black-clad militant brandishing a knife and speaking with an English accent appears to have carried out the beheadings of hostages including Americans and Britons.
The Washington Post said Emwazi was believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined IS.
"His real name, according to friends and others familiar with his case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming," the Post said.
In each beheading video, he is dressed entirely in black, a balaclava covering all but his eyes and the ridge of his nose. He wears a holster under his left arm.
Hostages gave him the name John as he and other Britons had been nicknamed the Beatles, another was dubbed George.
The paper said he had been born in Kuwait, was raised in a middle-class neighborhood in London and occasionally prayed at a mosque in Greenwich, southeast London.
Police declined to comment on the reports.
"We are not going to confirm the identity of anyone at this stage or give an update on the progress of this live counter- terrorism investigation," said Commander Richard Walton of the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command in a statement.
The Post quoted friends of Emwazi, who spoke on condition of anonymity, as saying they thought he had started to become radicalized after a planned safari in Tanzania following his graduation from the University of Westminster in London.
They said Emwazi and two friends — a German convert to Islam named Omar and another man, Abu Talib — never made it to the safari. On landing in Dar es Salaam, in May 2009, they were detained by police and held overnight before eventually being deported, they said.
No comment was immediately available from the University of Westminster.
The Post said counter terrorism officials in Britain detained Emwazi in 2010, fingerprinting him and searching his belongings.