This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ingrid Carlqvist, Editor-in-Chief of Dispatch International, and Nima Gholam Ali Pour, a Sweden Democrat Politician. They discussed How Islam is Conquering Europe, telling the uncensored truth about why Sharia is devouring a civilization.
Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions and LIKE Jamie’s Fan Page on Facebook.
“We think this is not only a threat to us. We think this is a threat to you as well.” Indeed.
“Benjamin Netanyahu to Lester Holt: Iran Nuclear Deal Poses Threat to U.S., Israel,” by Elizabeth Chuck, NBC News, July 15, 2015:
The landmark Iran nuclear deal poses a threat to both Israel and the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NBC News’ Lester Holt on Wednesday.
“We think this is not only a threat to us. We think this is a threat to you as well,” Netanyahu said, a day after Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., reached the historic agreement. “Iran has killed more Americans than anyone other than al Qaeda.”
“They’re going to get hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military machine,” he added.
The pact between Iran and world powers ends a decade-long dispute, and grants Tehran some relief from tough economic sanctions in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. President Obama said the accord ensures that “every pathway to a nuclear weapon” has been cut off.
But Netanyahu said Wednesday that he and Obama have a “real disagreement.”
“Iran is different. It’s a zealot country,” he said. “It’s killed a lot of Americans. It’s killing everybody in sight in the Middle East.”
Netanyahu contends Iran — long suspected of harboring enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon — cannot be trusted with any sort of nuclear program.
“I think Iran has two paths to the bomb: One if they keep the deal, the other if they cheat on the deal,” he said.
According to the terms of the agreement, United Nations inspectors will be able to check any suspicious facility in Iran within a period of up to 24 days.
“Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?” Netanyahu said. “That’s a lot of time to flush a lot of meth down the toilet.”
Israel, a strong U.S. ally, has been vocally opposed to any deal. In March, Netanyahu delivered an address to Congress blasting the negotiations as a way to empower Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,” he warned. “For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.”…
RELATED ARTICLES:
France say jihad terror plot against military bases foiled earlier this week
U.S. will help Iran stop Israeli threats to its nuclear program
Mike Bates (L) with Jerry Gordon.
You have heard statements by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry announcing an “historical breakthrough” with the P5+1 Joint Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program suggesting that it will be cut off from achieving a one year breakout to produce a weapon. He threatened Congress with a possible Veto should they reject the deal under the 60 day review requirements of the Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015.
All the while Iran’s infrastructure to produce a bomb remains in place and sanctions against acquiring conventional weapons including possible nuclear tipped ICBMs will be removed. Moreover, Iran will not be subject to the anytime intrusive inspections by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Notwithstanding, you have also heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who denounced the deal as an “historic mistake”.
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham called the Iran nuclear deal akin to a “declaration of War” on Israel. President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic went on Iranian TV allegedly calling the proposed pact a “win-win” that would eliminate mutual distrust for this state sponsor of terrorism. Not lost on many Americans is that the US did not obtain the release of three citizens imprisoned in Iran; a pastor, an ex-Marine and a journalist, as well as, an ex-FBI agent missing for over eight years. Then there is the embarrassment over Al Quds IRGC commander Gen. Qassem Sulyemani being lifted from the terrorism persons of interest list. This for a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; possibly Libya, as well.
To find what are the real implications of today’s historic announcement we convened a panel of experts for another in our periodic 1330 AM WEBY Middle East Round Table Discussions July 14, 2015. The panel discussion on “Your Turn” included guests Omri Ceren of The Israel Project, Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center and co –hosts Mike Bates and Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review. An article based on the panel discussion will appear in the New English Review.
Download and Listen to the panel discussion, here.
Our panelists were:
Omri Ceren, Managing Director for Press and Strategy at The Israel Project.
Shoshana Bryen, senior director, The Jewish Policy Center.
EDITORS NOTE: This podcast on 1330 AM WEBY radio originally appeared in the New English Review.
That can finance a great deal of genocidal hatred.
“Historic nuclear deal: Iran set to gain $100 billion,” Reuters, July 14, 2015:
VIENNA: Iran would get access to more than $100 billion in frozen assets when the Iran nuclear agreement is implemented, which depends on when Tehran has curbed its nuclear program and the UN nuclear watchdog has certified this, US officials said on Tuesday.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement of the deal, said that UN Security Council sanctions could be reimposed on Iran within 65 days in the event of Iranian noncompliance with the deal.
The accord includes a provision under which Iran can be required to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with access to suspected nuclear sites, including military sites, or with other means to address their concerns, within 24 days if a majority of a panel overseeing the deal insists….
If Iran refused to comply, one US official said that the major powers could then move to “snapback” or reinstate UN Security Council sanctions against Iran, a process that itself can take place within 65 days.
That’s one thing we can be sure will never happen.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Iran’s Supremo posts photo of himself trampling Israeli flag
Netanyahu: Iran nuclear agreement a “bad mistake of historic proportions”
The P5+1 and the Iranians have agreed to a deal that ensures Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities and lifts economic sanctions on the terror supporting Islamic regime. President Obama stood in front of the camera this morning and lied to the entire world. Click here to read the full transcript of his statement on the Iranian nuclear deal.
One truth in Obama’s statement is, “Iran currently has a stockpile that can produce up to 10 nuclear weapons.”
Benjamin Netanyahu stood in front of a camera and warned the entire free world of the consequences of this toothless deal.
In the terror enclave known as Boston, the son of a police captain was arrested and charged with terrorist activity.
An finally, and most disturbing of all, the Islamic State blows up a baby while training it’s members the fine art of booby-trapping!
Join us, sit back and get aggravated!
RELATED ARTICLES:
Here’s the Truth About 6 of Obama’s Iran Deal Claims
Join us for a Tom-less episode of Enemies of The State. We cover the recently escaped Mexican drug lord El Chapo Guzman, and why his best bet might be to go to San Francisco.
New York City Mayor Ed “The Red” De Blasio’s policies of allowing crimes to go unpunished, and the devastating affects they have on life in the Big Apple.
More examples of the Islamic State acting like real Muslims should, like killing dozens for not fasting during Ramadan.
And finally we take a look back at Friday’s show and the infamous “Doctor” Kevin Barrett and his Jew-hating potty mouth! Join us, you won’t regret it!
News came from Vienna this morning that a final deal has been reached between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Jerusalem Post reported:
World powers have reached a final, comprehensive agreement with Iran that will govern its nuclear program for over a decade, diplomats said on Tuesday morning.
The deal culminates a two-year diplomatic effort in which the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, led by the United States, have sought to end a twelve-year crisis over Iran’s suspicious nuclear work.
Formally known as the the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 100-page document amounts to the most significant multilateral agreement reached in several decades. Its final form is roundly opposed in Israel by the government, by its opposition, and by the public at large.
The JCPOA allows Iran to retain much of its nuclear infrastructure, and grants it the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the deal also requires Iran to cap and partially roll back that infrastructure for ten to fifteen years, and grants the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, managed access to monitor that program with intrusive inspections.
In exchange, the governments of Britain, France, Russia, China, the US and Germany have agreed to lift all UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic, once Iran abides by a set of nuclear-related commitments.
The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be tasked with enforcing the agreement over its lifetime. The UN Security Council will soon vote on a resolution to codify the deal.
So, too, will the United States Congress. The US legislature now has a 60-day period to review the deal and, should its leadership choose, vote on a resolution approving or disapproving of the deal. A vote of disapproval would be subject to a presidential veto, which Congress may then vote to override.
Israel and its Arab neighbors are united in opposition to the agreement, warning it will legitimize Iran as a nuclear-threshold state in the short-term, and embolden its form of government – a theocratic republic – in the long-term.
The deal seeks to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to keep Tehran at least one year away from having the capability to build such a weapon.
The JCPOA will not be “signed.” Negotiators in Vienna have agreed to “adopt” the text, and will spend several months preparing to implement various provisions of the highly technical agreement.
With this announcement from Vienna the unraveling of this dangerous legacy of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry will ensue with triggering of the 60 day review by Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. As if orchestrated on cue in this duplicitous act of appeasement, President Obama will go to Capitol Hill to make the case to Democratic members that this agreement is a Hobson’s Choice, the least bad deal, under the circumstances with Iran.
For the Republican Congressional majorities in both houses it will present a daunting task to enlist a minority of wary Democratic colleagues to join with them to reject the Joint Plan of Action attempting to make it veto proof. Allies in the Middle East Israel, Saudi Arabia the Gulf Emirates and Egypt oppose the agreement as it facilitates Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state supporter of terrorism equipped with ICBMs. It will trigger proliferation and possible eventual military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Reliance on less than intrusive UN inspections of military sites and both known and unknown sites will assure Iran’s becoming a nuclear threshold power. Obama will leave behind a literal Stygian Stable of difficulties for his successor to enforce compliance by Iran with questionable snap back sanctions subject to a committee including Iran. Israel will be left virtually alone to its own means to combat a nuclear equipped apocalyptic Islamo fascist Iran.
UPDATE: Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today commented on the Obama Administration’s announcement of a nuclear deal with Iran:
“I have said from the beginning of this process that I would not support a deal with Iran that allows the mullahs to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, and continue their regional expansionism and support for terrorism. Based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security. President Obama has consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, giving concession after concession to a regime that has American blood on its hands, holds Americans hostage, and has consistently violated every agreement it ever signed.
I expect that a significant majority in Congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down. Failure by the President to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama’s deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States. It will then be left to the next President to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security.”
RELATED ARTICLES:
Here’s the Truth About 6 of Obama’s Iran Deal Claims
23 Tweets Responding to the Iran Nuclear Deal
What 2016ers Say About Obama’s Nuke Deal With Iran
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of U.S. Secretary of State Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Vienna June 30, 2015. Source: Reuters.
Bret Stephens in his Global View column in today’s Wall Street Journal presents prolepsis arguments as to why the P5+1 deal with a nuclear Iran is a dangerous folly perpetrated by Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama on America, Israel and the World. It is a preview of the arguments that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry and their spokespersons will use to seal this deal in Press Conferences in Vienna and on Capitol Hill in Washington later this morning when the President meets with Democratic members of Congress.
Congress, under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, will now have the daunting task of reviewing the 100 page agreement that emerged from feckless deliberations in Vienna. That despite the blandishments to be offered by President Obama to fellow Democrats on Capital Hill today will likely be a very bad deal with the apocalyptic Mahdist regime in Tehran. An Islamo fascist regime and state sponsor of terrorism seeking the destruction of Israel , America and faltering Middle East allies.
Read Stephens’ cogent rebuttal of the misguided hopes and faulty logic of what passed for diplomatic appeasement of Iran successfully retaining the capability to be come a nuclear threshold state under the terms of this final Joint Plan of Action.
The heroic assumptions, and false premises, of our diplomacy.
By BRET STEPHENS
In formal rhetoric, prolepsis means the anticipation of possible objections to an argument for the sake of answering them. So let’s be proleptic about the Iranian nuclear deal, whose apologists are already trotting out excuses for this historic diplomatic debacle.
The heroic case.Sure, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is an irascible and violent revolutionary bent on imposing a dark ideology on his people and his neighborhood. Much the same could be said of Mao Zedong when Henry Kissinger paid him a visit in 1971—a diplomatic gamble that paid spectacular dividends as China became a de facto U.S. ally in the Cold War and opened up to the world under Deng Xiaoping.
But the hope that Iran is the new China fails a few tests. Mao faced an overwhelming external threat from the Soviet Union. Iran faces no such threat and is winning most of its foreign proxy wars. Beijing ratcheted down tensions with Washington with friendly table-tennis matches. Tehran ratchets them up by locking up American citizens and seizing cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Deng Xiaoping believed that to get rich is glorious. Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, a supposed reformer, spent last Friday marching prominently in the regime’s yearly “Death to America, Death to Israel” parade.
If there is evidence of an Iranian trend toward moderation it behooves proponents of a deal to show it.
The transactional case. OK, so Iran hasn’t really moderated its belligerent behavior, much less its antediluvian worldview. And a deal won’t mean we won’t still have to oppose Iran on other battlefields, whether it’s Yemen or Syria or Gaza. But that doesn’t matter, because a nuclear deal is nothing more than a calculated swap. Iran puts its nuclear ambitions into cold storage for a decade. In exchange, it comes in from the cold economically and diplomatically. Within circumscribed parameters, everyone can be a winner.
But a transaction requires some degree of trust. Since we can’t trust Iran we need an airtight system of monitoring and verification. Will the nuclear deal provide that? John Kerry will swear that it will, but as recently as January Czech officials blocked a covert $61 million purchase by Iran of “dual-use” nuclear technologies. A month before that, the U.S. found evidence that Iran had gone on an illicit “shopping spree” for its plutonium plant in Arak. That’s what we know. What do we not know?
Also, how does a nuclear deal not wind up being Iran’s ultimate hostage in dictating terms for America’s broader Mideast policy? Will the administration risk its precious nuclear deal if Iran threatens to break it every time the two countries are at loggerheads over regional crises in Yemen or Syria? The North Koreans already mastered the art of selling their nuclear compliance for one concession after another—and they still got the bomb.
The defeatist case. All right: So the Iran deal is full of holes. Maybe it won’t work. Got any better ideas? Sanctions weren’t about to stop a determined regime, and we couldn’t have enforced them for much longer. Nobody wants to go to war to stop an Iranian bomb, not the American public and not even the Israelis. And conservatives, of all people, should know that foreign policy often amounts to a choice between evils. The best case for a nuclear deal is that it is the lesser evil.
Then again, serious sanctions were only imposed on Iran in November 2011. They cut the country’s oil exports by half, shut off its banking system from the rest of the world, sent the rial into free fall and caused the inflation rate to soar to 60%. By October 2013 Iran was six months away from a severe balance-of-payments crisis, according to estimates by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. And that was only the first turn of the economic screw: Iran’s permitted oil exports could have been cut further; additional sanctions could have been imposed on the “charitable” foundations controlled by Iran’s political, military and clerical elite. Instead of turning the screw, Mr. Obama relieved the pressure the next month by signing on to the interim agreement now in force.
It’s true that nobody wants war. But a deal that gives Iran the right to enrich unlimited quantities of uranium after a decade or so would leave a future president no option other than war to stop Iran from building dozens of bombs. And a deal that does nothing to stop Iran’s development of ballistic missiles would allow them to put one of those bombs atop one of those missiles.
Good luck. Americans are a lucky people—lucky in our geography, our founders and the immigrants we attract to our shores. So lucky that Bismarck supposedly once said “there is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America.”
Maybe we’ll get lucky again. Maybe Iran will change for the better after Mr. Khamenei passes from the scene. Maybe international monitors will succeed with Iran where they failed with North Korea. Maybe John Kerry is the world’s best negotiator, and this deal was the best we could do.
Or maybe we won’t be lucky. Maybe there’s no special providence for nations drunk on hope, led by fools.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
The story of Abdullah al Andalusi, aka Mouloud Farid, aka Wazir Leton Rahman, epitomizes the confusion and willful ignorance of the British political class. The British government wouldn’t be able to distinguish a “moderate” from an “extremist” if its life depended on it, and it does. The British intelligentsia will never, even to the point of suicide, admit that the hard and fast, never bridgeable distinction they believe exists between the “moderate” and “extremist” camps is more a figment of its imagination than reality. The British political elites will never, ever admit that much of what they consider to be “extremist,” and that they assume most Muslims in Britain reject, is actually established doctrine of mainstream Islam that Muslims reject only at risk of being declared apostates and heretics. This denial and willful ignorance will be the death of Britain, and Britain is racing eagerly toward its demise.
“By day, at heart of counter-terror policing. And by night, preacher of extremism,” by Andrew Gilligan, Telegraph, July 12, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
The Government watchdog which inspects police forces’ readiness for terrorism admitted that it employed one of Britain’s most notorious Islamic extremists.
For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.
By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.
By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The disclosures will be intensely embarassing [sic] to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.
HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.
The inspectorate’s work includes scrutinising police forces’ counter-terrorism capabilities and top-secret plans for dealing with terror attacks.
It has also recently published reports on undercover policing and the use of informants.
HMIC admitted that Mr al Andalusi, whose real name is Mouloud Farid, had passed a security vetting check to work as a civil servant at the inspectorate.
He was subsequently promoted to executive grade, a management rank, placing him at the heart of the security establishment.
He was only sacked after bosses spotted him on television defending extremist Islamic positions on behalf of his organisation, the Muslim Debate Initiative, which is heavily dependent on Saudi money.
The inspectorate insisted that he did not handle classified material but former friends of Mr al Andalusi said he had done so.
“His work did involve security areas. He said he had a role in overseeing the police response to terrorism and there were areas he couldn’t talk about,” said one former colleague at the Muslim Debate Initiative, who asked to remain anonymous.
“He would discuss the reports that HMIC were working on and the data they needed to present.
“His story is so odd and so scandalous in many respects. He had these two completely incompatible lives that went on for years. He despised Britain, yet worked for the British government. He would talk about the right of oppressed people to take up arms against the oppressor and yet he was overseeing the police….
Under the name by which he was known to HMIC, Mouloud Farid, his links with the Muslim Debate Initiative were a matter of public record.
He was registered as a director of the organisation at Companies House, though he earlier this year changed to yet a third name, Wazir Leton Rahman, on the companies register.
“This man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” said Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.
“There is a lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service. I will be asking why the systems designed to prevent this did not work.”
There certainly is a “lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service.” British officials assume that every Muslim is a moderate who abhors and rejects the violence committed in the name of Islam and in accord with the texts and teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that everyone who believes otherwise is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.
Mr al Andalusi, a prominent figure on the extremist lecture circuit, is closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which believes that voting and democracy are un-Islamic.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is committed to working toward the imposition of the Sharia all over the world.
He is also a strong supporter of the terrorist lobby group Cage, which sparked outrage earlier this year when it defended the Isil hostage-killer Mohammed Emwazi, “Jihadi John,” as a “beautiful” and “gentle” man who had been radicalised by MI5. Like Cage, Mr al-Andalusi fiercely supports the right of British citizens to travel to Syria to fight.
He spoke at a Cage rally outside his own employer’s parent department, the Home Office, to demonstrate against the arrest of the former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, on Syria-related terror charges, later dropped. Alongside him were other high-profile extremists and hate preachers including Haitham al-Haddad and senior figures in Hizb ut Tahrir.
Mr al Andalusi has spoken at at least three other Cage events in the last ten months, including on September 20 last year when he claimed that, as part of its “war against Islam,” the British government wanted to force Muslims to eat non-halal meat.
He says that Western liberal society is committed to the “destruction” of all Muslim belief and shows on his Facebook page a picture a concentration camp with a Nazi swastika and “21st century” written on the watchtower.
In the foreground is a gallows with a short route to the hangman’s noose for “Islamists” and a longer route for “Muslim moderates.”…
In a talk at Queen Mary University, in East London, on 16 January, he asked why the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, was treated as a terrorist organisation by the West while the moderate Free Syrian Army was not.
He condemned memorials to 9/11, describing the terror attacks as “the day a vicious world empire [the US] found a publicly-acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people.”
After Isil took over large portions of Iraq last year, he wrote that “most Muslims would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”
He condemned the group for killing civilians but said that the West had “no basis to judge Islamic State” because “IS are no different to Western armies and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations… IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media.”
He said that “those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity among Muslims.”…
One said that he was disturbed by a meeting at which he and Mr al Andalusi heard another man say he wanted to join al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda franchise, and regarded civilian airliners as legitimate weapons of war. The former friend reported the conversation to police.
The former friend said Mr al-Andalusi used a number of psuedonyms and was always secretive about his real name but eventually revealed it in discussions with them.
Mr al Andalusi, who lives in a subsidised £750,000 housing association flat in Westminster, said last night that as Mouloud Farid he was “proud to work for a public watchdog which holds those in power to account. Cage are peaceful and not proscribed. Kaffir is a theological term which has no relation to non-Muslims.”….
Why is he living in subsidized housing when obviously he has gainful employ?
“Kaffir is a theological term which has no relation to non-Muslims” — that is an outright lie. Kaffir is generally translated as unbeliever or infidel, and it has everything to do with non-Muslims. The Qur’an declares that those Christians who believe that “Allah is Christ, the son of Mary” have “certainly disbelieved” (5:17, 72). The Arabic word used here is kafara, (كَفَرَ); it is a form of kufr, unbelief, and is related to kaffir, unbeliever.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Islamic State’s female police force whips, bites women who get out of line
2nd Tunisia jihad attack foiled, 5 Islamic State jihadis shot dead
A rare true statement from the Secretary of State. And of course the threat of the Islamic State is increased by the fact that Kerry and his cohorts refuse to acknowledge the ideology, beliefs, motives and goals of the Islamic State, and instead pretend that they are all other than what they really are. This denial will only lead to disaster.
“John Kerry: Daesh biggest threat to US, not Russia,” Middle East Monitor, July 11, 2015 (thanks to Bradamante):
The top U.S. diplomat doesn’t agree that Russia poses the greatest threat to the U.S., a State Department spokesman said Friday.
“Certainly, we have disagreements with Russia and its activities along or within the region, but we don’t view it as an existential threat,” said Mark Toner.
“Secretary [John Kerry] doesn’t agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, nor China, quite frankly.”
Toner’s comments were in response remarks by Joseph Dunford, nominee to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said during his confirmation hearings that Russia presents the greatest threat to U.S. national security.
“What the secretary does consider an existential threat is the rapid growth of extremist groups like Daesh, particularly in ungoverned spaces,” Toner said.
The analysis of Russia comes amid one of the worst periods in Russian-U.S. relations since the Cold War concluded in 1991, prompted in large part by Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Daesh and al Qaeda’s “ability to attract foreign fighters” present “real and tangible threats” to the U.S., Toner said….
RELATED ARTICLES:
After 4 months, Iraqi Christians who fled ISIS still detained by immigration officials
Iran launches “nuke Israel” video game on nuke deal deadline
The differences between shari’ah law and United States law is as separate as night is from day. Contrary to the overbearing all-consuming nature of shari’ah and the Muslim’s efforts to force it upon everyone worldwide. U.S. law is fundamentally territorial and is mostly contained within it’s geographic boundaries. Laws created in the United States (until more recent years) are positive laws (as opposed to divine laws), enacted by Congress or other United States authorities.
Further, it is a longstanding principle of legal construction that positive law is territorial in nature. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., wrote, “The general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done.” This principle is axiomatic to the American legal system.
Therefore, while shari’ah travels with a Muslim wherever he goes and is expected to be enforced universally over the law of any other nation. That is why bigoted Muslims try to take over wherever they move to. For example, Dearbornistan,MI. U.S. law is generally limited to the United States and does not apply in other nations.
Unlike here in the west, where separate nation-states are the political norm, Islam “assumes that all people are to be subject or bound to one giant Muslim community, bound by the brutal law of one ruler. Because Islam asserts that Allah revealed all laws, both religious and secular (in a Western sense), through his prophet Muhammad to the entire ummah community of Islamic believers), Islam is a divine, universal “Nomocracy” meaning a universal state governed by divine law. Thus, every Muslim is bound by shari’ah, which “binds individuals, not territorial groups.”
As a result, to Muslims, shari’ah supersedes all other law. Americans can forget the concept of Muslims ever respecting the national sovereignty of the United States, or truthfully pledging allegiance to our republic and what she should be standing for. While they want to take over the world and abuse non-Muslims throughout the Middle East and Europe, Muslims are calling the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq crusades against Islam. Funny thing, Muslims desecrate Christian symbols and destroy ancient Christian and Jewish sites and artifacts with regularity. All in the name of Allah. Mind you, these are the same holy people who marry and sexually abuse nine year old undeveloped little girls. That alone discredits their peaceful holy religion concept they proclaim to the world.
In the legal context, the loyalty to the Islamic ummah (community of believers) can be seen in the “active international grouping at the United Nations and elsewhere, [by fifty-seven] Muslim governments, which together constitute the so-called Islamic states have joined together to defend and spread Islam universality and require every Muslim to safeguard the “binding divine commands… of Allah.” Moreover, Islam divides the planet into two territories: dar al-isla, the territory of islam and dar al-harb, the territory of war. The dar al-Islam consists of all territories under Muslim rule. These two territories will always be in strife until (in the eyes of Muslims) Islam conquers the entire world. (So they believe)
Although the necessary exclusivity of the uhmah (community of believers) distinguishes the “infidels” of the outside world from the community of believers, the ultimate goal of the Islamists is to forcibly bring the entire world into obedience to Allah and his law.
Because Islam grew out of belief in complete world domination, by the sword, every dedicated Muslim is obligated to labor in his own way toward achieving that goal. It does not matter where he lives or who claims his allegiance. That is why, it is impossible for a Muslim (not radical, but dedicated) adhering strictly to shari’ah to honestly swear no loyalty to anyone besides Allah. At the very heart of Islam is the existence of a single Islamic state, which is “entirely exclusive” of all other gods.
Consequently, every Muslim’s obligatory allegiance to the global Islamic state is inherently incompatible with any other oath of allegiance. That includes an oath of allegiance to the United States of America. So it was no surprise to witness thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of Dearbornistan, MI when their Muslim brothers slammed airliners into the World Trade Center on September eleventh 2001. The Muslims have vowed to bring down America and to force shariah law upon all of us. In my opinion, that is a declaration of war and “we the People” of America must pray to the same and real God who blessed the founding fathers and the patriots who defeated the British Empire. Hopefully His wisdom and Providential guidance will once again be sought and utilized. If not, The United States will simply be, one nation gone under. Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their contributions.
EDITORS NOTE: The threat doctrine of the enemy of the free world is Islam. The overarching strategy of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM) is Fitna. To understand more about Islam, shariah laws, the threat and why Muslims slaughter visit Fitnaphobia.com.
During a panel discussion at Pensacola’s Brit Ahm Messianic Synagogue on June 27th following a showing of the APT documentary The J Street Challenge an audience member raised a question about the ancient Jewish claims to Jerusalem in the context of a recent Vatican declaration recognizing a Palestinian State. The panel spoke about the long term Vatican quest for internationalization of Israel’s eternal undivided capital of the Jewish nation that had protected the precincts if the world major faiths. Something that had not occurred during the 19 year occupation of Jordan until the liberation of the holy city by the IDF on June 7, 1967. Panelist Mike Bates 1330amWEBY Talk Show Host and station general manager discussed the fictional Islamic doctrinal claims, based on the legend of Mohammed’s fabled night ride, to the Temple Mount including the Western Wall –a revered Jewish site over two millennia. In our Iconoclast post on the Pensacola event, we wrote:
That led to an exposition by Mike Bates about the realities concerning Muslims claims of control over Jerusalem. He noted the legend of the Prophet Mohammed’s dream of a night ride on the human headed horse to “the farthest Mosque” where he meets Jesus and rises to heaven to meet Abraham and other Jewish prophets all deemed Muslim. Bates pointed out that nowhere in the Qur’an is Jerusalem mentioned. Moreover, Muslims did not occupy Jerusalem until The Rash dun Caliphate conquest and submission to Caliph Umar bin –Khattab in 637 C.E. Caliph bin Khattab initiated the construction of what ultimately become the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount and established a Dhimma or pct for governance of subjugated peoples of the book, Christians, Jews and others. Muslims claim any conquered land as a possession in perpetuity under a trust from their god Allah. Jews have lived in Jerusalem for more than 3,000 years.
We raise this because this week, a committee of UNESCO approved a resolution condoning these Muslim claims to the Western Wall based on Mohammed’s night legend, virtually excluding from consideration ancient Jewish historical claims and even Christian ones preceding the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem. Patrick Goodenough revealed the absurdity of the UN panel proposal in a CNS report, “UNESCO Backs Muslim Narrative on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount”:
A key committee of the United Nations cultural agency adopted a resolution this week whose language implicitly endorses the legend underpinning Islam’s claim to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount — the assertion that Mohammed tied his winged steed there while en route from Mecca to heaven.
Famed as a place of Jewish pilgrimage and prayer, the Western or “Wailing” Wall is the remnant of a retaining wall on the western flank of the platform that once housed the biblical Temples. As such it is the closest point observant Jews are usually able to get to the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism.
But for Muslim leaders wanting to deny Jewish historical and religious claims to the site, it is dubbed the al-Buraq wall, and the area in front of it the al-Buraq plaza. This is based on the belief that the founder of Islam stopped there during his “night journey” from Mecca to heaven, and tethered his legendary steed, al-Buraq, there while he led prayers with a congregation of “Islamic prophets” including Adam, Noah and Joseph.
Now the World Heritage Committee of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has adopted a resolution which refers to the area below and to the west of the Temple Mount as the “Buraq plaza.”
The resolution, proposed by three Arab countries, Qatar, Algeria and Lebanon, refers to the Temple Mount itself as a “Muslim holy site,” with no reference to its importance to Jews.
It slams Israel for various actions in Jerusalem’s Old City, including construction and excavation work. A light railway system whose route passes near – but does not enter – the Old City is said to be damaging the “visual integrity and the authentic character of the site.”
The resolution’s introduction at the World Heritage Committee’s session in Bonn, Germany, brought criticism from Israeli Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold, who said it was “full of distortions and is totally disconnected from reality on the ground.”
Gold said in a statement the measure “deliberately ignores the historical connection between the Jewish people and their ancient capital,” and also does not acknowledge Christianity’s links to Jerusalem.
He accused the UNESCO committee of hypocrisy, at a time when jihadists were destroying ancient heritage sites across the region.
“As the historical heritage sites of this area are being systematically destroyed by jihadist forces, such as the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, UNESCO’s adoption of utterly false allegations about Israeli archeological practices is misplaced and hypocritical, at best,” Gold said.
UNESCO in 2011 became the first U.N. agency to admit “Palestine,” a decision that triggered a U.S. funding cutoff mandated by a 1990 law barring financial support for “the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.”
Goodenough noted the motivation for the UNESCO resolution:
The Palestinians want parts of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as capital of a future independent state, and Palestinian and Islamic figures have long challenged Jewish historical and religious claims to the mount.
For instance, fatwas attributed to former grand mufti of Jerusalem Ikrama Sabri and former mufti of Egypt Nasr Farid Wasil, dispute Jewish claims to the Western Wall.
“Al-Buraq Wall is part of al-Aqsa Mosque and it is an Islamic endowment,” Wasil said. “Hence, it is not permissible in shari’a for any non-Islamic quarter to claim or possess it. The wall would remain part and parcel of Islamic heritage and endowment forever.”
“Al-Buraq Wall is part of al-Aqsa’s western wall and the whole walls of al-Aqsa are Islamic endowments,” said Sabri. “Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, had honored and blessed the place by tying al-Buraq to the wall, during his Night Journey and Ascension to the Heaven.”
“Hence al-Buraq Wall belongs to Muslims alone in the four corners of the earth and will remain so till Judgment Day. We neither admit nor acknowledge that Jews possess it (al-Buraq Wall) and, also we stress that there is no stone there dating back to Hebrew history.”
This UNESCO al-Buraq (Western Wall) resolution based on the fiction of Mohammed’s night ride to “the farthest Mosque” preceded Al Quds or Jerusalem Day, July 10, 2015 observed during the last Friday during Ramadan. The Founder of the Islamic Republic in Iran, Ayatollah Khomenei declared it as a religious duty for all Muslims to further the “liberation” of Jerusalem . Al Quds Day promotes the Palestinian assertion that Jerusalem should be its state capital reflecting the Muslim claims based on the Mohammed night ride legend. Qur’anic doctrine and Shariah law considers all conquered territory, whether Jerusalem or Andalusia in Southern Spain, as a Waqf, or trust conveyed by Allah in perpetuity. The Times of Israel reported Jerusalem Day was celebrated in Tehran with millions marching shouting “Death to America and Israel”, burning US and Israeli flags, an effigies of Netanyahu and the Saudi King. We note that the events in Tehran occurred in the midst of the P5+1 negotiation for a nuclear deal with Iran.
In our July 2015 NER interview with Manfred Gerstenfeld, we asked him about UN engaging in such delegitimization of Israel. He replied:
The UN is a major demonizer and hatemonger of Israel. That includes UN-associated bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission, UNESCO, UNWRA and many others agencies. The UN is supposed to be a moral body. When it comes to Israel its views reflect the extreme moral degradation of this largest supranational body. Hate expressions and double standards against Israel symbolize that.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Temple Mount and Western Wall in Jerusalem.
Hold on folks and get ready to hear some X-Rated language by a Muslim scholar who HATES me and The United West. This is quite ironic because it is usually the Muslims who accuse us of being hating “Islamophobes.”
Well, you can judge for yourself which side the Muslim Dr. Kevin Barrett or me, a Christian, exhibits professionalism and respect for the other.
So the question is simple, does the doctrine of Islam allows Muslims to act as Mr. Barrett does or is Mr. Barrett simply a nut-case psycho? These and other penetrating questions will be addressed by me and the other Muslim on the show, Chris “Isa” Hodge.
EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Muslim exhibits classic Fitnaphobic behaviors. Barrett is not a nut-case psycho, he is attacking Tom Trento to stop the Fitna (resistance to Islam and shariah laws).
His use of dirty language shows the anger and frustration of individual Fitnaphobes as they combat (wage jihad) those who tell the truth about Islam. It is brutally refreshing to see someone who is doing the will of Allah by slaughtering the Christian Trento using verbal abuse and bullying.
Fitnaphobes like Barrett do not want peaceful dialogue, they want to dominate first the dialogue then the world.
As the latest deadline in the international negotiations with Iran expires today, millions of Iranians are on the streets. They are not marching because of the talks, nor are they marching because it is the last Friday of Ramadan. They are marching because this latest ‘final’ day of negotiations is also ‘Al-Quds Day’ and thus an annual opportunity – inaugurated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini – to take to the streets and chant ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’
Back in Geneva, America’s negotiating team are presumably immune to the import of such occasions. A couple of weeks ago, when the Iranian Parliament decried the idea of international access to Iranian military and nuclear sites, the Parliamentary session ended with representatives on the floor chanting ‘Death to America’. In many ways this goes to the heart of the fallacy that is happening in Geneva. Because the American administration seems to see the Iranian regime as an entity that is open to change; one that desires normalisation not as a short-term tactic but as a long-term wish. When this US administration looks to Tehran it does not see an illegitimate regime which survives on a diet of anti-Western hatred, but a plausible negotiating partner. Whatever it is that President Obama and Secretary Kerry think they see in the unsmiling faces of the Ayatollahs is something which is hard to see in Iran on this day of all days.
On Wednesday this week, The Henry Jackson Society held a panel event with experts on Iran – including Emanuele Ottolenghi – who considered this latest round of talks. One issue which arose was the question of the endless extensions to the Geneva talks. On and off, the P5+1 have been at this process for several years now. And yet every time there appears to be the presumption that, as the Iranians run down the talk’s deadlines again and again, a couple more days will solve it. Is it really likely, after years, that the problems will be solvable given another 48 hours? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are stalling?
This past week it appeared for a moment that the latest Iranian gambit was to demand a lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran. In reality, this was probably no more than an attempt by the Iranians to split the European and the Americans from the Russians and Chinese. As the representatives of the international community go through another final round of talks, and attempts to schedule in the next final round as well, is there not another possibility here? Is it not in fact possible that the Iranians are in a position akin to that of Yasser Arafat at Camp David?
On that occasion it did not matter how long the Americans and Israelis kept at the negotiations for. It did not even matter that in the end the Israelis put more on the table than at any time before. What mattered was that Arafat never intended to sign a deal – not just not the deal in front of him, but any deal. It is the hope of the American representatives in Geneva that the Iranians desperately want a deal. But the deals they are considering keep offering them more and more and yet, they still don’t take them. Is it not possible that the millions of people marching through Iran today, rather than the negotiators in Geneva, are the ones who are really speaking on behalf of the regime?
FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK
Like a slow motion train wreck, the Eurozone crisis sparked by Greece’s parlous position continues to command attention across the continent. Although in an extraordinary turnaround from the position unfolding earlier in the week – when the Greek people rejected an austerity deal designed to secure a third tranche of bailout funds – it now appears that their irresponsible leaders have reversed position and submitted a package to Greece’s creditors that is even tougher than that previously rejected, and which does not mention debt relief at this juncture.
In this column last week, I suggested that Greece’s Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, was largely to blame for the situation of Greece careering towards Grexit through a series of political missteps. I think this view has been vindicated by a new development that has evidently pleased Eurozone leaders and the financial markets judging by their immediate positive reaction.
Having won his snap referendum by stoking up Greek nationalism and the sense of defiance that has been the hallmark of Greek resistance to overwhelming odds against them in the past, it remains to be seen how Tspiras is going to be able to sell one of the more remarkable political climbdowns of recent years to his people. He has evidently decided that the costs of a likely Grexit resulting from the seductive siren song of “an end to austerity and business as usual” are too high to bear. But having encouraged Greeks to support this idea, he will now have to convince them that there is no alternative to a negotiated deal.
While the beginning of the end – it does of course remain to be seen how any deal agreed will be implemented – of this saga should be welcomed, this has hardly been the EU’s, or Liberal Democracy’s, finest hour. The Eurozone has been exposed once again as a political project masquerading as an economic one, with no sense of how it will resolve this contradiction. And Liberal Democracy’s ideals have been shaken by the Greek Prime Minister’s abuse of a direct democratic referendum process that says more about his personal political needs than those of the nation, and which will now be reversed without the Greek people having any say in the final outcome. Let us hope Europeans can learn from this shambles or else many more tears will follow from where Greek ones have already been shed.
Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Iranian girls show their hands, marked with the words “Down with USA,” at a demonstration in Tehran.
It’s true that TSA’s physical screeners are embarrassingly bad at their jobs, failing to notice 95% of threats in tests by Homeland Security.
But always never fear! TSA also has Behavior Detection Officers. These super agents can spot terrorists just by looking at them. Now, thanks to a leaked TSA checklist (and scorecard) of suspicious behaviors, you can too!
The document shows 92 different behaviors that can flag you as suspicious — such as being too happy (or too sad); having “sweaty palms” or “rubbing hands”; “arriving late” and “body odor”; “gazing down” or “open staring eyes” — to which an arbitrary number of “points” are attached.
If you score six or more points, you win a trip to enhanced screening and an interrogation by police. But you can get points deducted for being old (minus 1 point for women over 55 or men over 65) or married and old (minus 2 for a couple over 55).
Of course, the Intercept reports, the program has
attracted controversy for the lack of science supporting it. In 2013, the Government Accountability Office found that there was no evidence to back up the idea that “behavioral indicators … can be used to identify persons who may pose a risk to aviation security.”
After analyzing hundreds of scientific studies, the GAO concluded that “the human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same as or slightly better than chance.”
The suspicious behavior checklist also includes “having a cold penetrating stare” and “expressing contempt for the screening process.” After reading this, I’m not sure it’ll be any easier for me to get through TSA without them.
Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of TSA officer Robert Howard signals an airline passenger forward at a security check-point at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Jan. 4. (AP Photo)
