Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

What is Wrong with ISIS, is What is Wrong with Islam

by Daniel Greenfield on Tuesday, August 19th, 2014

This is article 780 of 779 in the topic Terrorism

Know your enemy. To know what ISIS is, we have to clear away the media myths about ISIS.

ISIS is not a new phenomenon.

Wahhabi armies have been attacking Iraq in order to wipe out Shiites for over two hundred years. One of the more notably brutal attacks took place during the administration of President Thomas Jefferson.

That same year the Marine Corps saw action against the Barbary Pirates and West Point opened, but even Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Howard Zinn chiming via Ouija board would have trouble blaming the Wahhabi assault on the Iraqi city of Kerbala in 1802 on the United States or an oil pipeline.

Forget the media portrayals of ISIS as a new extreme group that even the newly moderate Al Qaeda thinks is over the top, its armies are doing the same things that Wahhabi armies have been doing for centuries. ISIS has Twitter accounts, pickup trucks and other borrowed Western technology, but otherwise it’s just a recurring phenomenon that has always been part of Islam. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other for over a thousand years. Declaring other Muslims to be infidels and killing them is also a lot older than the suicide bomb vest.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are at odds because its Iraqi namesake had a different agenda. Al Qaeda always had different factions with their own agendas. These factions were not more extreme or less extreme. They just had different nationalistic backgrounds and aims.

The Egyptian wing of Al Qaeda was obsessed with Egypt. Bin Laden was obsessed with Saudi Arabia. Some in Al Qaeda wanted a total world war. Others wanted to focus on taking over Muslim countries as bases. These differences sometimes led to threats and even violence among Al Qaeda members.

Bin Laden prioritized Saudi Arabia and America. That made it possible for Al Qaeda to pick up training from Hezbollah which helped make 9/11 possible. This low level cooperation with Iran was endangered when Al Qaeda in Iraq made fighting a religious war with Shiites into its priority.

That did not mean that Bin Laden liked Shiites and thought that AQIQ was “extreme” for killing them. This was a tactical disagreement over means.

During the Iraq War, Bin Laden had endorsed Al Qaeda in Iraq’s goal of fighting the Shiite “Rejectionists” by framing it as an attack on America. AQIQ’s Zarqawi had privately made it clear that he would not pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden unless the terrorist leader endorsed his campaign against Shiites.

Bin Laden and the Taliban had been equally comfortable with Sipahe Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which provided manpower for the Taliban while massacring Shiites in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Last year LEJ had killed over a hundred Shiite Hazaras in one bombing.

The narrative that ISIS was more extreme than Al Qaeda because it killed Shiites and other Muslims doesn’t hold up in even recent history.

The media finds it convenient to depict the rise of newly extremist groups being radicalized by American foreign policy, Israeli blockades or Danish cartoons. A closer look however shows us that these groups did not become radicalized, rather they increased their capabilities.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Genocide! A Christian Holocaust

by Alan Caruba on Monday, August 18th, 2014

This is article 1227 of 1227 in the topic International
Syrian victims of Islamic State slaughter
By Alan Caruba
In the last century and now this one, I have lived long enough to have been alive when the Nazis killed six million European Jews and another five million other “enemies of the state” that included unionists, homosexuals, Seventh Day Adventists, and any others that ran afoul of that hateful and hate-filled regime.
There were genocides in the last and this century. The killing of Kurds by Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who used poison gas—a weapon of mass destruction—against them is largely forgotten by everyone but the Kurds.
In the 1990s there was a genocide in Rwanda by the Tutsi tribe against the Hutu people. Hundreds of thousands were killed, most by machete. Reportedly rape, mutilation, and the deliberate spread of disease were also used against them. The final body count was estimated by some at well over a million.
In the Middle East, the Islamic Ottoman Empire whose final years were directed from what is now modern-day Turkey was responsible for the Armenian Genocide that began in 1915. The Armenians were a Christian minority and what is occurring in the land claimed by the new Islamic State (IS) reflects the same barbarity that afflicted and killed between 600,000 and 1.8 million Armenians.
In Europe following the fall of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” between 1990 and 1995. Some twenty thousand were killed.
And now the fanatical Islamic State that stretches from areas of northern Syria through much of northern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, is waging a systematic and utterly barbaric genocide of the area’s Christians. They are killing Muslims too.
And what is the world doing? Virtually nothing.
The President of the most militarily powerful nation on Earth has dropped some “humanitarian” aid to thousands of Yazidis, an ancient, little known group driven from their homes in northern Iraq where they have lived for hundreds of years. Thousands of Christians were driven from Mosul. There has been an increase in U.S. air attacks on IS forces, but a far greater effort will be needed to destroy this evil entity.
Nigerian Christians killed by Boko Haram

In Nigeria, Boko Haram, an Islamist terrorist group, is slaughtering thousands.

The Islamic State is now the most militarily powerful force in the Middle East and one of the most wealthy. It threatens the Kurds who have finally begun to receive weapons from the U.S.
What President Obama should be doing is orchestrating a military coalition just as George H.W. Bush did to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but the fact is that Europe is fearful of participating because it is now home to a large population of Muslims.

Click to continue reading “Genocide! A Christian Holocaust”
Go straight to Post

Friday Afternoon Roundup – The Long Way Around

by Daniel Greenfield on Friday, August 15th, 2014

LEARNING FROM HISTORY

ISIS represents a familiar Saudi tactic. It’s the revival of the Ikhwan, the armies of Wahhabi bandit raiders who united Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud by terrorizing Sunni rivals and Shiite Muslims. The ISIS atrocities of today were business as usual for the Ikhwan who referred to other Muslims as infidels, invaded Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan, killed some 400,000 people and created a million refugees.

(Similar events had also taken place earlier such as the Wahhabi sack of Kerbala in Iraq in 1802. A contemporary description relates, “The elderly, women, and children—everybody died by the barbarians’ sword.”)

The Ikhwan, like Al Qaeda, turned on the Saudis and their attacks on British territory attracted Imperial attention. The Saudis used British air strikes to put down the Ikhwan in the 1920s and transformed what was left of them into the country’s National Guard. This pattern becomes familiar to us if we swap out the Ikhwan for Al Qaeda in its various forms. The difference is that modern technology and oil wealth have given the Wahhabi raiders a truly global reach as we discovered on September 11.

If Genocide Won’t Unite Iraq, Nothing Will

Family of Dead Palestinians “Killed by Israel” Found to be Alive

ISLAMOPHOBIA – UN Condemns ISIS for Raping Teenage Boys

WHAT JIHAD?

 A Facebook page that appears to be his shows that he “liked” Zaid Shakir and Bilal Philips. Philips was also named an unindicted conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing.

He also likes Khalid Yassin who called for killing gays

New Jersey Muslim “Innocently” Flying ISIS Flag “Liked” Conspirator in WTC Bombing

Al Gore Sues Al Jazeera for Fraud – What happens when one fraud sues another fraud for fraud?

CAUSE AND EFFECT

 The special weapons and tactics concept originated in the late 1960s as a result of several sniping incidents against civilians and police officers around the country. Many of these incidents occurred in Los Angeles during and after the Watts Riot.

If anyone could be labeled as the “founder” of LAPD’s SWAT unit, it would be John Nelson, a former Marine and Vietnam War veteran who joined the LAPD as a patrol officer.

John had served in a USMC elite Force Recon unit during WWII and based the SWAT concept on the Recon units, believing that a small squad of highly trained police officers armed with special weapons would be more effective in a riotous situation than a massive police response.

On Dec. 8, 1969, the department called on SWAT to help serve a warrant for illegal weapons at the Black Panther headquarters.

The heavily armed Black Panthers resisted and attempted to shoot it out with 40 SWAT officers. Thousands of rounds of ammunition were fired during a four-hour siege, resulting in the wounding of three Panthers and three officers.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Cartoon Round Up

by Alan Caruba on Friday, August 15th, 2014

This is article 17 of 17 in the topic Humorous

Go straight to Post

Jimmy Carter’s Love for Terrorists

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, August 12th, 2014

This is article 138 of 138 in the topic History
By Alan Caruba
Jimmy Carter was elected President for one reason—Richard M. Nixon. The feeling in the nation was that the born-again Sunday school teacher and Georgia Governor was the perfect antithesis of the President who was forced to resign over the Watergate scandal. He defeated Gerald Ford, Nixon’s Vice President who was largely punished for the 1974 pardon he gave the disgraced Nixon.
In a similar fashion Ronald Reagan was elected President to replace Carter who was widely seen as a failure for both his domestic and foreign policies. For the years since, Carter was understood to have been the worst President, but a recent Quinnipiac University poll of 1,446 registered voters ranked Obama as the worst since the end of World War II, granting Carter an approval rating four times higher than Obama.
I never liked Carter and Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the beginning of my transition from liberal to conservative; one that I suspect occurred for many others as well. Larry Bell, a NewsMax contributor, commenting on the Quinnipiac poll, noted that “Just as with Obama, the Carter administration had inherited a recession and did little to improve a weak economy.”
After Carter took office Bell noted that “unemployment continued to rise, inflation reached 13 percent, and interest rates approached 20 percent.” Reagan set about improving the economy, rebuilt our military strength, confronted the Soviet Union, and the 1980s are remembered fondly by those who lived through his two terms.
Carter faced problems with Iran that had seized twenty U.S. diplomats in 1979 and held them for 444 days, unresponsive to his efforts to free them. A military attempt failed, killing thirty soldiers when our helicopters crashed. I have always thought that the Iranians took Reagan’s measure and feared what he would do. They released the hostages the same day he was first sworn into office.
On August 5, USA Today reported that Carter had “called upon the West to recognize the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas as a legitimate ‘political actor’ that represents the bulk of the Palestine population.”
Extremely critical of Israel’s military operation to protect its citizens against the deluge of rockets coming out of Gaza, Carter and former Irish president Mary Robinson had their views published in a Foreign Policy article, saying “There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war.”
Carter has never met a despot, from Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev to Bashar Assad and his father, Hafez, to the gang that runs Hamas that he didn’t like. That is the quintessential trait of liberals who have always been attracted to despots. They’re the ones who wear Che Guevara t-shirts.
Carter, different from most evangelicals, has never given any evidence of respecting Jews or Israel.

Click to continue reading “Jimmy Carter’s Love for Terrorists”
Go straight to Post

Genocide: the Communist and Islamic Versions

by Cliff Kincaid on Monday, August 11th, 2014

This is article 1225 of 1227 in the topic International

With President Obama reluctantly acting on behalf of Christians in Iraq, in order to avert what he calls a potential “genocide,” the United Nations is going through the motions of coming to grips with the nearly 40-year-old communist genocide in Cambodia. A U.N.-sponsored court has convicted two Cambodian communist leaders of crimes against humanity.

But The New York Times ran a story blaming America, not communism, for the mass murder.

The Khmer Rouge was the communist version of ISIS in Iraq.

In the original story on the Times website, the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge and its brutality was framed in terms of being provoked by the United States. The Times story said, “The covert carpet-bombing of eastern Cambodia from 1965 to 1973 is seen by historians as a major factor in the destabilization of Cambodia in the years before the Khmer Rouge came to power.”

I had noticed this phrase in the original story, dated August 6, only to go back on Friday and find it wasn’t there in the new version. It had been taken out.

I finally found the original at a very interesting website called www.newsdiffs.org that “watches different versions of highly-placed articles on online news sites,” starting with The New York Times.

It appears, in this case, that somebody at the Times realized that blaming the U.S. for the crimes of communism didn’t make a lot of sense, and that it was downright offensive. After all, 58,000 Americans died to prevent communist takeovers of Vietnam and Cambodia.

The original story can also be found on other websites, such as that of the International Scholars Center.

For the record, the U.S. supported Lon Nol, who was defeated by the Khmer Rouge in 1975. The New York Times ran a story headlined, “Indochina without Americans: for most a better life.” Out of a total population of seven million, some two to three million Cambodians were killed.

Rather than facilitate the genocide, the U.S. tried to prevent it.

There was only one reference in the story by Thomas Fuller and Julia Wallace to the fact that the Khmer Rouge was a communist organization. The story noted that “Mr. Nuon Chea, who was the deputy secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea under Pol Pot, defended Khmer Rouge policies as necessary to the development of a ‘people’s democratic revolution.’”

Nuon Chea is known as the chief ideologist of the Khmer Rouge. He was unrepentant.

Although the U.N. prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for crimes against humanity or genocide, at least some of the Khmer Rouge leaders are going on trial.

By contrast, the Cuban-backed Weather Underground in the U.S. had plans to eliminate 25 million Americans, according to the late Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant in the group. Yet, Weather Underground leaders were rehabilitated and became college professors and even helped President Obama launch his political career. Many never went on trial and are unrepentant.

The absurd idea in the original Times story—that U.S. bombing somehow brought the Khmer Rouge to power and made them go crazy and murder millions—is something we have heard before.

As AIM founder Reed Irvine noted in a 1985 AIM Report, “This was the theory propounded by William Shawcross in his book Sideshow.

Click to continue reading “Genocide: the Communist and Islamic Versions”
Go straight to Post

Hiroshima’s Lessons for the War on Terror

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, August 10th, 2014

This is article 137 of 138 in the topic History

In the summer of ’45, the United States concluded a war that had come to be seen by some as unwinnable after the carnage at Iwo Jima with a bang.

On August 6th, the bomb fell on Hiroshima. And then on the 9th, it was Nagasaki’s turn. Six days later, Japan, which had been preparing to fight to the last man, surrendered.

For generations of liberals those two names would come to represent the horror of America’s war machine when they actually saved countless American and Japanese lives.

The two bombs stand in stark contrast to our endless nation-building exercises in which nothing is ever finished until we give up. Instead Truman cut the Gordian Knot and avoided a long campaign that would have depopulated Japan and destroyed the lives of a generation of American soldiers.

That we can talk about Japan as a victory, that the famous couple was caught kissing in Times Square rather than sighing in relief, is attributable to that decision to use the bomb. Without it, Japan would have been another Iraq or Vietnam, we might have eventually won at a terrible cost while destroying our willingness to fight any future wars and that would have given the USSR an early victory in Asia.

Professional soldiers understand the humanitarian virtue of ruthlessness. The pacifist civilian may gasp in horror at the sight of a mushroom cloud, but the professional soldier knows that the longer way around would have left every Japanese city looking far worse than Hiroshima.

More people died in the Battle of Okinawa on both sides than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9 out of 10 buildings were destroyed. As much as a third of the island’s population committed suicide, fled into caves that were bombed, were used as human shields or were killed when American soldiers found themselves unable to distinguish between Japanese soldiers posing as civilians and actual civilians.

And all that was in a part of Japan that was not fully aligned with its national identity. It does not take much to imagine what trying to capture Honshu would have looked like. Take the worst horrors of Vietnam and keep multiplying until you run out of imagination. If you run low, remember that at Okinawa the military was handing out grenades to civilians and its home defense plans involved encouraging the civilian population to commit suicide attacks.

The United States military did not understand the fanatical mindset of its enemies, but it did understand that they had to be fought with equal ruthlessness.

And now on another hot August, we find ourselves in another unwinnable war.  It isn’t really unwinnable, but there is the sense that we have done everything possible and all we can do is live with it. As the left will tell us, more Americans died in car accidents in 2001 than on September 11.

Doubtlessly more Americans died in some assortment of accidents in 1941 than at Pearl Harbor. Instead of calling it a day that will live forever in infamy, FDR could have put their deaths into perspective by comparing them to the number of Americans killed by Polio and given a typical Obama speech warning the public not to jump to any conclusions.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Friday Afternoon Roundup – Open Minds, Closed Hearts

by Daniel Greenfield on Friday, August 8th, 2014

This is article 1223 of 1227 in the topic International

 LEADER-SHIP

The photo was retweeted by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who had just gotten through explaining that Obama deals with genocide on a case-by-case basis.

The White House also uploaded it to its Flickr page and it’s probably on Instagram and projected above the White House with a laser on the sky.

This situation room photo is serious. It means business. Susan Rice has changed out of her PJs and into her power suit like she’s ready to go on morning shows at any minute and blame a YouTube video for the whole thing.

 Iraq Crisis Worsens, Obama Deploys “Super-Serious” Situation Room Photo

A MAN TOO BROADMINDED TO TAKE HIS OWN SIDE IN A QUARREL

David, for all that he was the underdog, did not set out to be liked. He set out to win. He took an insanely dangerous risk with faith that a Higher Power would help him accomplish the impossible. Israel came closest to that in the Six Day War. It is not Goliath, but it has also forgotten how to be David.

People are more likely to rally behind those with conviction in their own righteousness. The Muslim Goliath has carried off his imitation of David through the degree of his conviction. Israel and its defenders have strived for reasonableness over conviction, trying to prove their humanitarian credentials through a willingness to see both sides.

But as the conflict has become a war of ideas, it has become clear that wars of ideas are no more won by those who see both sides than wars of force are won by those who fight on both sides.

Making David Into Goliath

MEMO TO J STREET

“It makes no difference whether a Jew is pro-peace or pro-war, whether right-wing or left-wing… and serves as a target for the Jihad of the Islamic nation.”

“Allah Akbar.”

“Khaybbar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the Army of Mohammed will return.”

Australian Muslim Leader: Also Kill Left-Wing Anti-War Jews

THE GOOD FIGHT

Mutuality makes morality and immorality in war self-regulating. If you firebomb someone else’s cities, someone else will firebomb your cities. If you want your prisoners of war to be treated well, you have to treat the prisoners you take equally well.

Such mutuality is the only international agreement that truly matters. It takes humanitarian behavior out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of rational self-interest. It creates a direct and working program for rewards and punishments that does not rely on a League of Nations or United Nations.

These rules would have made it impossible to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Had Churchill and FDR been bound by the belief that bombing enemy cities is genocide, Hitler and Tojo would have been free to implement real genocide in Europe and Asia.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Cartoon Round Up

by Alan Caruba on Friday, August 8th, 2014

This is article 16 of 17 in the topic Humorous
 

 

 
 

Go straight to Post

Israel, the Tea Party and the MSM

by Lloyd Marcus on Thursday, August 7th, 2014

This is article 559 of 560 in the topic Media

I am probably not alone in noticing that the mainstream media’s deplorable unfair treatment of Israel is strikingly similar to how it treats the Tea Party. In both cases, the MSM has chosen a side, spinning its reporting to brand the victims intolerant, racist and hate-filled aggressors.

Israel was minding its own business when it was attacked by Hamas, showering Israeli towns with thousands of rockets. Hamas seeks the total destruction of Israel. If it were not for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, millions of Israelis would be dead.

Now get this folks. It does not get more cold, calculating and satanically evil than this. Hamas stores and launches its rockets from civilian sites, schools, hospitals, mosques and more.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the situation perfectly when he said Israel is using its Iron Dome to defend its people from missiles launched by Hamas who use their people to shield their missiles. http://bit.ly/1k2pbPv So when Palestinian civilian casualties obviously far exceeded those of the Israelis, the MSM went postal on Israel; machine-gunning Israel with negative stories.

The truth is Israel has shown remarkable compassion and restraint, going above and beyond to avoid harming civilians.

Before bombing a Hamas target, Israel texts, makes phone calls and even fires warning firecrackers to alert civilians, begging them to evacuate the premises. Who in the world fights a war in such a humane manner?

Still, the MSM flooded the worldwide airways with images of suffering and dying Palestinian women and children, purposely deleting crucial facts to misrepresent the truth to shape public opinion against Israel. http://bit.ly/1lOpF78 This is exactly what the MSM has done to the Tea Party.

By the way, Israel’s lifesaving Iron Dome system is the same technology launched by Ronald Reagan (Strategic Defense Initiative) that was heavily mocked by liberals and the Democrats. Sen. Ted Kennedy laughed at Reagan describing his initiative as a misleading Red-Scare tactic and reckless Star Wars scheme.

The Tea Party which consist of mostly middle-aged adults, seniors, parents and grandparents was birthed in response to Obama’s shock-and-awe attacks on our freedoms and unprecedented unlawful power grabs.

Obama’s desire to fundamentally transform America was hidden in plain sight before his historic election. The millions of white voters who put the first black man in the White House were blinded by MSM hype and their desire to make amends for America’s sin of slavery.

Because the MSM is in favor of Obama’s transformation of America, MSM fellow “transformers” demonized the millions of white former Obama supporters in the Tea Party.

The MSM’s goal is to brand all opposition to Obama’s socialist/progressive agenda hatred for a black president. Blatantly and shamelessly the MSM is shaping public opinion against the Tea Party, instilling division and racial hate.

I pray that our Tea Party leaders will take a cue from Israel’s strong, brave and courageous Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Regardless of worldwide public opinion and slings and arrows launched by the MSM, Netanyahu will not be intimidated into not defending, protecting and making decisions in the best interest of his people.

We do have a hand full of character driven leaders who have consistently displayed the same backbone as Netanyahu.

Click to continue reading “Israel, the Tea Party and the MSM”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin