Tag Archive for: air strikes

Top Hamas Official Ahmad Bahr And Palestinian Freedom Movement Secretary-General Khaled Abu Hilal Killed In IDF Gaza Airstrikes

Bahr Prayed For Killing Every American And Jew ‘To The Last One,’ Glorified Martyrdom; Abu Hilal Called On Palestinians Abroad To ‘Target Every Infidel Zionist’ – Clips From The MEMRI TV Archive


Palestine | Special Dispatch No. 10964

On November 17, 2023, Palestinian sources reported that Hamas official Ahmad Bahr was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Gaza.[1] Bahr, 76, was a member of Hamas’s political bureau and former deputy chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Khaled Abu Hilal, the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Freedom Movement, was separately reportedly killed in an airstrike.[2]

MEMRI TV has translated numerous clips of Bahr’s statements, including several in which he glorified waging jihad and martyrdom, praised Palestinian martyrs, and called for the annihilation of Americans and Jews “without leaving a single one.”[3]

MEMRI TV has also translated clips of Khaled Abu Hilal calling for attacks on Israeli individuals and embassies in Europe and the U.S., and praising Palestinians who seek martyrdom, including Members of Parliament, women, and children.

The following are clips of such statements made by the two slain officials from the MEMRI TV archive.

Hamas MP Ahmad Bahr At Gaza Conference On ‘Global Plots To Destroy The Muslim Family’: The UN CEDAW Agreement Is Evil, Seeks To Destroy Arab, Muslim Society – August 30, 2023

On August 30, 2023, Palestine Today TV (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) aired the Gaza Conference on “Global Plots to Destroy the Muslim Family”, at which speakers criticized the UN’s Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) agreement. Hamas MP Ahmad Bahr said that the CEDAW agreement is an “evil act” that seeks to destroy Arab and Muslim societies under the guise of slogans such as women’s liberation, social freedom, and “other tools of destruction.”

To view the clip, click here or below:

Hamas MP Ahmad Bahr: “We view CEDAW as an evil act, and as an international effort to destroy Arab and Muslim societies and the structure of the family within them, under shiny slogans about equality between men and women, the liberation of women, reclaiming women’s rights, spreading social freedom, and other tools of destruction.”

Hamas Parliament Speaker Ahmad Bahr: The Resistance Will Take The Life Of Anybody Who Tries To Disarm It, Including Trump Or Netanyahu; The Downfall Of The Deal Of The Century Will Come – January 29, 2020

Hamas Parliament Speaker Ahmad Bahr said in a January 29, 2020 address that aired on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas-Gaza) that the Palestinian resistance has a long hand that can reach anyone who is tempted to mess with the rights and holy places of the Palestinians. He said that the downfall of the Deal of the Century, U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and all the schemes and conspiracies against the Palestinian people and cause will come and he emphasized that the resistance will take the life of anybody who tries to disarm it, including Trump or Netanyahu. He added: “[The Quran says:] ‘Fight them. Allah will punish them by your hands… Kill them wherever you may find them and drive them away from wherever they drove you away.'”

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “The resistance has a long hand that can reach far and wide to anyone who is tempted to mess with our holy places and our rights.

[…]

“Allah willing, the downfall of the Deal of the Century will come. The downfall of the schemes and conspiracies against our people and our cause will come, as will the downfall of Trump and the downfall of Netanyahu. On behalf of our Palestinian people everywhere, we declare: Whoever tries to take away the weapons of the resistance – the resistance will take his life, even if it is Trump or Netanyahu.

“I’ll say it once again. On behalf of our Palestinian people everywhere, we declare: Whoever tries to take away the weapons of the resistance – the resistance will take his life, even if it is Trump or Netanyahu.

“[The Quran says:] ‘Fight them. Allah will punish them by your hands, and will disgrace them, and give you victory over them, and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.’ [It also says:] ‘Kill them wherever you may find them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.'”

Hamas Official Sheikh Ahmad Bahr: ‘Criminal’ Trump Is Digging His Own Grave – Scenes Of Gaza ‘Return March’ – May 13, 2018

Hamas official Sheikh Ahmad Bahr, former deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said that Trump was “digging his own grave” by moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Sheikh Bahr added that “the land of Palestine will explode under the feet of this criminal.” He was speaking on May 11 at one of the venues of the “return march,” in the central Gaza Strip.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “We say to the idiot trying to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem that he is digging his own grave. The land of Palestine will explode under the feet of this criminal.”

Hamas Official Ahmad Bahr: On Women’s Day, We Salute Jihad-Fighting Palestinian Women Like [Suicide Bomber] Rim Al-Riyashi – March 8, 2017

Hamas official Ahmad Bahr, deputy chair of the Palestinian Legislative Committee, said that while Europe celebrates the woman on International Women’s Day, its men sell their wives “like merchandise.” He went on to say: “We salute the Jihad-fighting Palestinian woman, who tends to the martyr and tends to her husband, and perhaps will become a martyr herself,” recalling Rim Al-Riyashi, who carried out a suicide attack against Israelis in 2004. Bahr’s address was broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV on March 9.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “The Palestinian woman is held in esteem. She is a wife, a daughter, a sister, and a grandmother. The Palestinian woman is held in esteem in Islam – in our religion, our moral values, and our faith. Every year, on March 8, the world celebrates International Woman’s Day, a holiday invented by Europe. Let me say, in a nutshell, that Europe celebrates the woman, but at the same time, it kills women. It celebrates the woman, but as you know, the [European] man sells his wife in front of the whole world, as if she is merchandise to be bought and sold.

“In the West, where they are celebrating the woman today, they want to present women naked in halls and stores, in order to attract customers. In Islam, in contrast, the woman is respected. As the Prophet Muhammad said, women are the sisters of men.

“Therefore, on Women’s Day, we salute the Jihad-fighting Palestinian woman, who tends to the martyr and tends to her husband, and perhaps will become a martyr for the sake of Allah herself, like the Jihad-fighting sister (suicide bomber) Rim al-Riyashi, who sacrificed herself for the sake of Palestine. The woman, who is being honored today, serves, makes sacrifices, and maintains her ribat for the sake of Allah.”

Hamas Official Ahmad Bahr Preaches For The Annihilation Of Jews And Americans – August 10, 2012

Following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament Ahmad Bahr, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on Aug 10, 2012.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out [on Jihad] without her husband’s permission, and a servant without his master’s permission. Why? In order to annihilate those Jews.

[…]

“Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.”

Deputy Speaker Of Hamas Parliament Ahmad Bahr: We Will Sweep The Siblings Of Pigs And Apes Out Of Our Land – September 23, 2011

Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Ahmad Bahr, deputy speaker of the Hamas parliament, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on September 23, 2011.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “Allah said: ‘Your Lord said that he would send against them, till the Day of Judgment, those who would afflict them with cruel torment. The Lord is quick in retribution, but he is also Most Forgiving and Most Merciful.’ Allah Akbar!

“The commentators said with regard to this blessed verse that Allah would impose the nation of Muhammad upon the Jews until the Day of Judgment, when they would be defeated and Allah would transform them, just as He transformed them [into apes and pigs] when they disobeyed Him. That is why Allah imposed the nation of Muhammad, and the Jihad-waging Palestinian people, upon those siblings of apes and pigs, until we sweep them out of our land and our holy places.”

Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr: 2.5 Million Virgins Await The Prophets, The Righteous, And The Martyrs In A Single Palace In The Garden Of Eden – September 4, 2010

Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on September 5, 2010.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “It is said that ‘Omar [Ibn Al-Khattab] wished to become a martyr. It is said that one day, ‘Omar addressed the people: ‘In the Garden of Eden, there is a palace – hear me well, brothers – with 500 gates. At every gate, there are 5,000 black-eyed virgins.’ Brothers, 500 multiplied by 5,000 is 2.5 million.

[…]

“He said that only prophets may enter this palace. He looked at the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad, and said: ‘Blessings, oh Messenger of Allah. Only the prophets and the righteous may enter the palace.’ Then he turned to the tomb of Abu Bakr, and said: ‘Blessings on your martyrdom for the sake of Allah.’ Then ‘Omar said: ‘Martyrs [enter the palace] too.’ Then ‘Omar said, as if to himself: ‘Blessed be your martyrdom, oh ‘Omar.’

[…]

“Ibn Hajar explicated a hadith, saying: When a man is having sex with his wife, he should be praying for a son who would wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it? Brothers, on the Night of Al-Qadr, bestowed upon us by Allah, I say to you: As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom.

“I say to you, loud and clear: the negotiations, conducted first in the US, then in Sharm Al-Sheikh, and wherever, are aimed at uprooting Islam and the resistance here in Palestine, in Gaza.”

Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr Glorifies The Culture Of Martyrdom: The Mother Hides Her Son’s Gun Under Her Cloak And His Little Sister Walks Ahead Of Him – April 30, 2010

The following excerpts are from a Friday sermon in the Gaza Strip, delivered by Hamas PLC Speaker Sheik Ahmad Bahr. The sermon aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 30, 2010.

To view the clip, click here.

Ahmad Bahr: “This [Israeli] soldier, who was said to be invincible, has been defeated by us, with the grace of Allah. These are cowardly soldiers who came from Europe, from America, or from East Asia to occupy our land. These soldiers are cowardly aggressors. ‘You shall indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life.’ They want to live, to drink alcohol, to live in clubs. This is what they want.

[…]

“Allah has given me the honor of visiting the homes of the martyrs, where you hear peculiar things. Nowhere in the world do you find people with such a culture. The father says: ‘I have nine children. Two are gone, and I am ready to sacrifice the remaining seven.’ The same goes for the wife. She wants to sacrifice her sons for the sake of this homeland. She says: ‘It is your responsibility not to give in on Jerusalem and on the right of the refugees.’ She hides her son’s AK-47 so that no one will find it. She puts on her wide cloak and brings it where it is needed, and his little sister walks ahead of him to make way for him.”

Speaker Of Palestinian Legislative Council Ahmad Bahr Refers To Jews As ‘Brothers Of Pigs And Apes’ – August 21, 2007

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Ahmad Bahr, Speaker of Palestinian Legislative Council, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on August 21, 2007.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “Jerusalem, which was first conquered by Omar and then liberated by Saladin, was lost by the Muslims, who strayed from the path of Allah. This was the reason that the brothers of apes and pigs had the audacity to defile and occupy it, and then to burn its pulpit, in complete disregard of everyone.

[…]

“The liberation of Jerusalem will not be achieved by means of glittering slogans, cheap arrogance, and degrading concessions. It will be achieved by realizing the divine path in the souls of the Muslims, and by raising the generation of the coming victory to lead the battle against the brothers of apes and pigs.

“By Allah, Jerusalem will be restored only through Jihad. The foundations of the monstrous entity will be shaken only by the love of martyrdom for the sake of Allah. By Allah, even if all Palestinians die for the sake of Jerusalem and Palestine, and if they all attain the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Allah, this would be a small and cheap sacrifice for the sake of Jerusalem.”

Acting Speaker Of The Palestinian Legislative Council Sheik Ahmad Bahr From Hamas Declared During A Friday Sermon At A Sudan Mosque That America And Israel Will Be Annihilated, Called Upon Allah To Kill The Jews And The Americans ‘To The Very Last One’ – April 12, 2007

Following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which aired on Sudan TV on April 13, 2007.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Ahmad Bahr: “‘You will be victorious’ on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] ‘you will be victorious,’ but only ‘if you are believers.’ Allah willing, ‘you will be victorious,’ while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: ‘You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.’ They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America’s nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

[…]

“America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims ‘will be victorious, if you are believers.’ Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

[…]

“I tell you that we will protect the enterprise of the resistance, because the Zionist enemy understands on the language of force. It does not recognize peace or the agreements. It does not recognize anything, and it understands only the language of force. Our Jihad-fighting Palestinian people salutes its brother, Sudan.

[…]

“The Palestinian woman bids her son farewell, and says to him: ‘Son, go and don’t be a coward. Go, and fight the Jews.’ He bids her farewell and carries out a martyrdom operation. What did this Palestinian woman say when she was asked for her opinion, after the martyrdom of her son? She said: ‘My son is my own flesh and blood. I love my son, but my love for Allah and His Messenger is greater than my love for my son.’ Yes, this is the message of the Palestinian woman, who was over seventy years old – Fatima Al-Najjar. She was over seventy years old, but she blew herself up for the sake of Allah, bringing down many criminal Zionists.

[…]

“Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet – defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.”

Gaza Politician Khaled Abu Hilal: We Demand The Death Penalty For All The ‘Criminal Murderers’ Who Took Part In Killing Activist Nizar Banat, Including President Abbas and Prime Minister Shtayyeh – June 26, 2021

Khaled Abu Hilal, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Freedom Movement said that it is high time to implement the death penalty against the “criminal murderers” who were responsible for the killing of opposition activist Nizar Banat by PA security forces. He made his remarks in a rally protesting the killing that aired on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas-Gaza) on June 26, 2021. Abu Hilal said that the identities of those who gave the “death sentence” against Banat are known, and they include Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whom he called “the leader of the gang,” Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, whom he said collaborates with the occupation, and Ziyad Hab Al-Rih and Majed Faraj, the commanders of the Preventative Security Force and the General Intelligence Services, respectively. He said that “the solution is to carry out the death sentence” against them.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Khaled Abu Hilal: “The identity of [Palestinian activist Nizar Bant’s] killers is known — 27 criminals from the Preventive Security Force and the General Intelligence gangs. All our people in Hebron know them by name. We know the names of the people who stormed the home of the martyr Nizar Banat and carried out the order to assassinate him. The leaders are also known to all. Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of the gang.

“[PM] Mohammad Shtayyeh is the so—called ‘Minister of the Interior,’ although I have reservations about calling him that, because he is a minister leading a rogue gang, who is in charge of an agency that collaborates with the occupation. Majed Faraj and Ziyad Hab Al-Rih are the commanders of the Preventive Security Force and the General Intelligence Service, and they took part in planning and carrying out [the killing]. We have come here today to demand as loud as we can: It is high time to carry out the death penalty. It is high time that — for once and for all — we witness the shari’a being implemented against the criminal murderers.

[…]

“Therefore, I say that the solution is to carry out the death sentence against all these criminal murderers — all those who took part in planning and committing this cowardly crime, that constitutes a mark of shame on the faces of those who committed it.”

Gaza Politician Khaled Abu Hilal: Palestinians Abroad Should Attack Israeli Embassies In Europe, U.S. With Stones, Molotov Cocktails: ‘Why Not Run Over This Zionist In Germany… Why Not Stab Him In His Heart?’ – October 8, 2015

In an October 8, 2015 address aired by the Al-Jazeera Network, Khalel Abu Hilal, leader of the Palestinian Freedom Movement, called to attack Zionist embassies abroad with Molotov cocktails and stones. “Why not run over this Zionist in Germany, in Tunisia, in Egypt, or in Jordan?” he asked. “Why not stab him in his heart?”

To view the clip, click here or below:

Khaled Abu Hilal: “We want [Palestinians abroad] to launch a holy march on all the Zionist embassies, in all the Arab and Muslim countries, as well as in Europe and America. All these embassies must be stoned with holy stones, like Satan is stoned. These embassies should be attacked with Molotov cocktails. Why not target every infidel Zionist, who spreads corruption and depravity throughout the Arab and Islamic land? Why not stab this plundering settler? Why not run over this Zionist in Germany, in Tunisia, in Egypt, or in Jordan? Why not throw stones and Molotov cocktails at him? Why not stab him in his heart?”

Leader Of The ‘Palestinian Freedom Movement’ Khaled Abu Hilal: We Have Martyrdom-Seeking Parliament Members – January 1, 2010

The following are excerpts from a speech given by Khaled Abu Hilal, the leader of the Palestinian “Freedom Movement”, which aired on Al-Alam TV on January 1, 2010.

To view the clip, click here or below:

Khaled Abu Hilal: “We have a Legislative Council whose members are martyrdom seekers. We have national and Islamic factions, whose leaders are martyrdom seekers. We have martyrdom-seeking women. We raise our children from kindergarten to love martyrdom. We are not afraid of anybody, but…”

Crowd: Allah Akbar. Praise be to Allah.”

Abu Hilal: “I am not addressing the rulers of Egypt. We washed our hands of them a long time ago, and we know that the rulers of Egypt orbit in the Zionist-American sphere. We have only one Abbas here in Palestine, but God help the Egyptian people, with all the Abbases they have to deal with.”

Crowd: “We place our trust in God.”

[…]

Abu Hilal: “The great Gaza will turn into a curse that will haunt you in your dreams, a nightmare that will make you lose sleep, and an earthquake that will shake your seats and your bellies. We vow to escalate our protest measures, until [the Egyptians] back down from building the criminal wall of shame, with which they want to strangle Gaza.

“Brace yourselves, from this moment, for the procession of the living dead, which will kindle the flame and the wrath of the nation, against all those who oppress and harm us. Oh Allah, whoever wants to harm our people and our mujahideen – blind his eyes and deafen his ears.”

SOURCES

[1] Timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-reports-hamas-official-ahmad-bahar-killed-in-israeli-strike-in-gaza, November 17, 2023; Israelnationalnews.com/news/380489, November 17, 2023.

[2] Maannews.net/news/2106173, November 17, 2023.

[3] See MEMRI TV clip no. 3538 Hamas Official Ahmad Bahr Preaches for the Annihilation of Jews and Americans, August 10, 2012.

EDITORS NOTE: This MEMRI column with videos is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Russia hit 1,888 targets in Syria in a week — U.S. count? Just 16

The Russians have often accused the Obama Administration of just pretending to go after the Islamic State by mounting a few airstrikes just for show. And here we are.

Putin7

“Russia hit 1,888 targets in Syria in a week; US count? Just 16,” by Matthew Schofield, McClatchy, February 12, 2016:

BERLIN — In the seven days before the announcement early Friday that a cease-fire might go into effect in Syria in another week, Russian forces hit more than 100 times as many targets within the embattled nation as a military coalition that includes the United States.

Exactly how the cease-fire proposed at an international conference in Munich would work is still being decided. The agreement announced by Russian and U.S. officials said “a nationwide cessation of hostilities … should apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities” except the Islamic State, al-Qaida’s Syrian affiliate — Jabhat al Nusra — “or other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council.”

Since Russia considers any organization attacking the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad a terrorist group, the question arises of just how its efforts might change.

And those efforts are substantial, as a weekly report by the Russian Ministry of Defense makes clear. In a report posted Thursday on its website, the ministry noted that its jets flew 510 combat sorties and hit 1,888 “terrorist objects” in Syria. The previous week’s report claimed 464 sorties that hit a total of 1,354 “terrorist objects.”

Daily reports from the U.S. military for the same period indicate a much lower level of activity: 16 targets struck in Syria. The reports also said those forces hit 91 targets in Iraq.

The reports suggest Russia has been far more aggressive than the United States has leading up to the cease-fire proposal.

The most recent Russian report, for instance, notes, “During air duty mission, Su-25 attack aircraft detected three hardware columns transporting militants, armament and munitions along the highway al Qaryatayn-Homs. The strike resulted in elimination of nine heavy trucks with munitions and more than 40 militants.”

A Feb. 9 report from U.S. Central Command gave that day’s actions this way: “Near Kobani, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit. Near Manbij, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit. Near Mar’a, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim shouts “inshallah” as he rapes student, then asks her if she enjoyed it

Pope and Patriarch of Moscow decry persecution of Mideast Christians, don’t name persecutor, call for dialogue

RELATED VIDEO:

VIDEO: On Modern Man’s Fatal Conceit

In case you missed my talk from Restoration Weekend 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina, here it is again, complete with a transcript from FrontPage:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Robert Spencer: Good morning. This is going be very easy because the topic is, “Do we have the will to defeat ISIS or the Islamic State?” Obviously, the answer is “no.” So enjoy your breakfast. But there’re actually some reasons for that, and very simply, in the first place, in order to defeat the Islamic state, airstrikes alone are not going to do it.

In the history of air warfare, it has never been known that a country was conquered solely from the air, and the Islamic State is going to be no exception. There’re going to have to be significant ground forces. Nobody wants to send ground forces back to Iraq. And even if we did send ground forces back to Iraq, we would probably make the same mistakes we made the first time in engaging in Wilsonian nation building projects instead of actually trying to win the war and the whole thing would be foredoomed. The idea that wars are to be fought in order to aid the enemy, instead of to defeat the enemy, is actually a new concept that has come about in the last few decades and is really a core of the problem of why the west, at this point, does not have the will to defeat the Islamic State.

The core of the concept was actually summed up, I think, recently in a New York Times piece that was called 27 Ways to be a Modern Man. And it was a wonderful piece because the New York Times, of course, is the adjudicator of acceptable opinion, the arbiter of style and the guide and for the perplexed and they set it all out for us: what does it mean to be a modern man? And I thought, well, I want to be a modern man. I’m going to read this. And so, I found out actually that the modern man listens to Wu Tang at least once a week. Now, I had to look that up. I found out actually that Wu Tang is an American hip–hop group from New York City originally composed of East Coast rappers RZA, GZA, Method Man, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, Inspectah Deck, U-God, Masta Killa and the late Ol’ Dirty Bastard. Now, of course there’re plenty of us still alive, but the late Ol’ Dirty Bastard is somebody who I think sums up a lot of the problem here that modern man doesn’t seem to care about the societal decay that his musical tastes represent.

Modern man doesn’t seem to have much of any moral compass. And one of the things that we’re also told by the New York Times about the modern man is that he has no use for a gun. He does not own one and does not need one. And I thought, well, I understand that he might not want to own one, but how does modern man know that he doesn’t ever need one? Because he even says, “the modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off so that his wife has a chance to get away.” Well, it’s interesting enough that modern man has a wife at all, but he has no use for a gun; so how, exactly, is he going to fight off this guy? Well, we understand that the modern man always has a melon baller on hand to make sure that his cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew are uniformly shaped. And so that obviously, he can use to fight off the intruder. The modern man, also, we’re told, cries. He cries often. And I think one of the reasons why there’s going to be more and more crying in the West is because modern man is in charge of the United States government at this time.

Barack Obama is a modern man. John Kerry is a modern man. And the core assumption, in all seriousness, is that they think we’re beyond all that: we’re beyond wars, we’re beyond fighting. There is no conflict in the world that cannot be solved by sitting down and negotiating because everybody else is a modern man as well. See, that’s why the modern man doesn’t need a gun, because if the guy comes in with a gun, they can just sit down and talk about it and they’ll reach some accord. And they really believe that this is true. Barack Obama and John Kerry showed that they were quintessential modern men when they thought well we have the Ayatollah Khamenei, he’s somebody just like us. Well, sure, he shouts death to America a few times but really he has the same aspirations for peace, the same desire to join the harmonious community of nations and so we can do business. And they did. The biggest obstacle that the modern man faces, however, is that there are some people in the world who are not modern men. Khamenei, of course, is one very much so and the leader of North Korea, the caliph of the Islamic State, all of them old–fashioned guys. And old–fashioned guys, they understand that there is tribalism, there are ancient hatreds, there is warfare and there are some things that you just can’t settle by means of talking things out.

Now, what’s very interesting nowadays is that we see the confrontation of the modern man with the old–fashioned man in many, many arenas nowadays. And it’s always a very interesting confrontation. For example, there is a very courageous individual, Canon Andrew White. He’s known as the vicar of Baghdad and he is an Anglican clergyman from the UK who has remained in Baghdad and in Iraq as it has become a war zone and as the Christians have been victimized by the hundreds and thousands, and he has stayed there. But Canon White showed the other day that he still has a bit of modern man in him because he contacted the leaders of ISIS as they were getting close to Baghdad and invited them to dinner. And I thought wouldn’t that be amazing if Winston Churchill had written to Hitler and said, hey, come on to dinner. But, of course, Neville Chamberlain did just that. He accepted Hitler’s invitation and went to Munich. Neville Chamberlain was a modern man. Churchill understood there’s no talking to this guy. There is no talking to him (that is going to solve anything) and we’re just going to have to go to war. But Canon White, he invited the leaders of the Islamic State to dinner and they very graciously responded, “We’ll be glad to come to dinner and we’ll cut off your head.” That’s the confrontation between modern man and the old–fashioned man.

Another one that was very interesting, just the other day, was in regard to Faisal Mohammad. Faisal Mohammad was a young man who, on the University of California Merced campus, just recently stabbed four people and seriously wounded them. And it has come out that he left a manifesto that has not yet been published in full, but we have heard that, in the manifesto, he praised Allah and he had a step–by–step plan for what he was going to do when he carried out the stabbings including to sit down and sing the praises of Allah after he’d carried out the stabbings, and that it has been further revealed by a television station in Merced itself that he was on a terror watch list and had an ISIS flag in his possession. And Vern Warnke who is a police investigator in Merced at this time said he conceded these facts and then said but this has nothing to do with his religion. This has nothing to do with Islam, whatsoever. He didn’t kill anybody. He stabbed these people because he was disgruntled about being kicked out of a study group and that’s all it’s about.

Now, that’s quintessential modern man. The modern man is not annoyed by reality. He is not troubled by reality. Reality is not something that the modern man is interested in at all. But here again, in reality keeps impinging upon who he is and what he wants to do.

Just a few days ago also in Hamtramck, Michigan near Detroit, for the first time in the history of the United States a majority Muslim City Council (8:42 in video) was elected in Hamtramck and all the while that the Muslim candidates were running, this was celebrated as something that would be a triumph of diversity in multiculturalism. So as soon as they were elected, at the celebration party, one of the new city councilmen in Hamtramck said, “We showed the Polish and, everybody else, Hamtramck having been a historically Polish city. And this sent shockwaves through the local community and a lot of the people including some of the defeated candidates said, “Well, you know he’s speaking in a way that’s not really consistent with diversity and multiculturalism. He shouldn’t be wanting to show the Polish or show them up or rebuke them in any way. We’re all working together in harmony here, aren’t we?” Well, no. But that what happens when modern man meets reality.

Now, the disjunction, I think, is society wide between reality and the modern man. You take for example Ben Carson and Barack Obama, and Ben Carson recently, of course, ignited a firestorm by saying that he wouldn’t want to see a Muslim president. And lots of people said wait a minute. He doesn’t even know the constitution. There’s no religious test for candidates in the constitution (and he ought to be aware of that). He wasn’t saying that, however. This was a misinterpretation, probably willful, of his words. What he was pointing out was that Islamic law of Sharia has numerous aspects that are incompatible with constitutional freedoms. Denies the freedom of speech, denies the freedom of conscience, denies the equality of rights of women, denies the equality of rights of non–Muslims. These things, obviously, are not compatible with constitutional principles such that, as Dr. Carson pointed out, a presidential candidate if he were a Muslim would have to either adhere to the constitution or Sharia but he couldn’t do both; and he would have to renounce aspects of Sharia in order to adhere to constitutional principles and he might be doing that honestly or dishonestly. And this is a problem that is probably going to recur. And, of course, this was a terrible thing and Dr. Carson was widely denounced as an Islamophobe. Now, on the other hand, you have Barrack Obama, who of course has said Muslims are part of the fabric of this nation and have contributed to it since its founding. And, of course, you remember all the Muslim generals in the Revolutionary War and the Muslims among the founding fathers, the Muslim signers of the Declaration of Independence, and so on.

And so, we have to admit he has a point, but here again, modern man is untroubled by reality, and the idea that Barack Obama could say that and could say the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam which is a direct attack on the First Amendment, a direct attack on the freedom of speech and on the idea that even if something considered to be slander of the prophet of Islam, Americans ought to be free to say it. That ought to have ignited the firestorm, but of course, there was nothing because modern man is in control of the mainstream media as well as in control of the government.

And so, what all this makes clear, in brief, is that what we need in the government of the United States as we approach the new election cycle are some old–fashioned men and women who understand that we’re not beyond all that at all and that modern man, going into the confrontation with the ancient old–fashioned men represented by the caliph al–Baghdadi and Ayatollah Khamenei and so on, is absolutely outmanned, is absolutely out classed and has no chance of defeating him. And as a matter of fact, of course, defeat is not even something that he’s interested in pursuing. You may recall as a matter of fact that we went into Afghanistan 13 years ago, or 12 years ago, in order to defeat the Taliban and now the Pentagon and the United States government are announcing that the Taliban are an integral part, an important aspect of the post–war situation and the new harmonious and peaceful Afghanistan. Can you imagine if we had said, “Well we have to have the Nazis in the post World War II German government.” But course, modern men weren’t in charge during World War II. And what we have to do is turn them out now and insist that we elect people who are patriotic and who are aware of reality, who are aware of the reality of the Islamic Jihad against the west, who are aware of the reality of Islamic law and the implications that that has for the American polity as well as for international relations and people who will confront these facts realistically and formulate strategy on the basis of them rather than as, Barack Obama and John Kerry and all the other modern men are trying do, reshape reality into the image that they wish it to be, the glorious multicultural future in which there’s no nationality and no boundaries and no standards for anything and we’re all just together in this one glorious mosaic. It’s unfortunately true that, when these kinds of fantasies are applied to reality, then disaster ensues and that is what we are unfortunately heading for unless we get the modern man out of office and so that should be our primary objective for 2016. Thank you.

Audience member: That was great, Robert.

Robert Spencer: Thank you, Nina.

Audience member: I wanted to ask, “Is Jihad Watch going to do a compendium of kind of, how do you say, grave missteps in the same regard as you just documented, the conflict with the First Amendment to get sort of the contrast out there?”

Robert Spencer: Yeah, that’s a good idea. Thank you. And I think absolutely so, yes. People aren’t aware of the nature of Islamic law (and it’s widely obfuscated). A few years back there were nationwide attempts to outlaw Sharia in various states and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic advocacy group with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, they fought fiercely against these initiatives and were able to get activist judges to overturn them where they were passed in most of the places where they were passed. Now, they said that you can’t outlaw Sharia because Sharia is simply Islamic religious law and so you would be forbidding Muslims to practice Islam. And this was taken as axiomatic by the judges who overturned the statutes. But obviously, the point needs to be made, people aren’t concerned about Sharia because Muslims are reading the Koran or getting married according to Islamic rights or something of that kind or setting out their wills in accord with Islamic law and so on. Nobody’s concerned about that. People are only concerned about Islamic law, about Sharia, insofar as it does conflict with the principles and the freedoms that are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. And so that ought to be the focus of these anti–Sharia initiatives and I hope that they’ll be able to be revived on that basis.

Audience member: That was really brilliant, Robert. I’m wondering since all of this in this room are not modern men and women, but dinosaurs –

Robert Spencer: Neanderthals.

Audience member: – proud dinosaurs and Neanderthals, I’m wondering as a case study, since you’re one of us, you’re one of the dinosaurs and you’re a very brave one, what CAIR and other organizations have personally done to you and whether or not you have had fatwas put out on your head and how you’ve managed to deal with that.

Robert Spencer: Well, yeah, I have a lot of death threats in terms of that. I don’t know if I have any formal fatwas but a death threat is a death threat, whether it’s got an official stamp from a Muslim cleric or not. I’m not concerned about death threats. Obviously, if I’m speaking in a public place where it’s been announced and there are likely to be people who are just coming in from wherever, then I generally have security with me and the great Floyd is right here. And that’s always a consideration but I’m not really concerned about it. It’s not as if I’m going to be immortal if I don’t do this work. And so, at a certain point you just have to make a decision to go ahead. As far as CAIR goes, it’s much more important. What CAIR does is, and it’s not only with me but anybody, anyone and everyone who speaks the truth about these issues CAIR will target and try to discredit and silence and marginalize. And they have done this for years such that they tar with the charges of racism, bigotry and islamophobia. Anyone who speaks about this in any forum, and I see it all the time, I get the CAIR mailing every day and they are asking some place to cancel some speaker or asking that some city officer somewhere resign because he wrote something anti–Muslim on his Facebook page. And the anti–Muslim statement was really about how we need to resist the jihadis but of course CAIR tries to obstruct that. The idea is to intimate Americans into silence and make people afraid to speak out about this because they think, well I don’t want to be charged with racism and bigotry and so I’ll just keep quiet about this. And it’s been an extraordinarily effective campaign, the Fort Dix jihad plot. There are six Albanian Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed and went to the virgins. That was foiled by a 17 year old boy because he was working in a video store and the jihadis went into the video store and they asked him to transfer all their gory jihad tapes from VHS to DVD. And so he was watching all this and he was alarmed. But this is the key point. He went to his manager and he said, “Dude, I’m watching all this weird stuff on the screen. Should I go to the police or would that be racist?” Would that be racist? See, that I think sums up right there where he’s worried would it be racist to turn in some blood thirsty jihadis to the police? That shows how successful the CAIR campaign has been, that this teenager, he’s internalized all that.

Audience member: Next question’s right here, Robert.

Audience member: Thank you for your analysis of –

Robert Spencer: Thank you.

Audience member: – the character. Because this is something that our enemies always do. We always used to read about how the soviets paid so much attention to what our leaders were like and indeed Putin has done that for Obama. He is inside his head as somebody said. And we never do it.

Robert Spencer: Rent free, yeah.

Audience member: And that was a really perfect thing using that modern man.

Robert Spencer: Thank you.

Audience member: One thing I want to ask you about is tribalism, connected with that. Because one of the great achievements of not modern man, but modern civilization in America is that we have tried to overcome tribalism. We pursued integration. We broadened rights to everybody. And it seems to me that what our modern men and the left is doing is to bring back tribalism. So when those jihadis said we got the Polish (that just seems like an omen of things to come). If you were always attacked for who you are, you’re going to be tribal after a while.

Robert Spencer: Yeah, absolutely. I think, well of course, many people have observed that the multiculturalist imperative is all cultures are equal except our own and all cultures are good except Judeo–Christian western culture which is to be rejected and despised in every possible way. And so the idea of multiculturalism does encourage tribalism because it encourages you to take on your cultural identity even and especially in the west and especially in the U.S. at the expense of the mainstream culture. And so, yeah, at a certain point, it’s going to result in atomization and conflict. There’s no way that it can’t. It’s just like the Austria–Hungary empire with all its constituent nationalities and the more that they began to press for their national identities, the more it became inevitable that the empire was going to dissolve and these constituent parts would be independent. Now, in the United States, it’s going to be actually much messier and bloodier because it’s not a regional thing or a matter of different nationalities together in one, but these different cultural identities that are being reinforced and often in a manner that is quite hostile to the mainstream. So yes, it’s not going to end well.

Audience member: Question in the back, hold on, Robert.

Audience member: Thank you. Is there enough drive or purpose behind the movement to get the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a terrorist organization?

Robert Spencer: Well, the purpose is to stop the Obama administration from favoring the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration solicitude for the Muslim Brotherhood is so extreme that when the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt was being toppled, by the Egyptian people, millions and millions of Egyptians out on the streets, demonstrating against the Brotherhood regime in 2013, they were holding up signs saying, “Obama stop supporting terrorists.” And it was all about Obama’s supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Even after the Brotherhood regime has been toppled, he has met with Brotherhood representatives in Washington and sent American representatives over to speak to the Brotherhood in Cairo while snubbing and giving the cold shoulder to the AsSisi regime that is against the Brotherhood. So the idea of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group would be to try to end this Muslim Brotherhood influence and they decided pro–Muslim Brotherhood slant of the Obama administration. Excuse me.

Audience member: Okay. Right here, right here Rob.

Audience member: So I was in class and I was defending Dr. Carson’s statements because the United States was founded on Judeo–Christian values and not Islamic values and I had a teacher tell me that Judeo–Christian was a term made up to get votes from republic Christians. Is that the case, which I know it’s not, but how could I defend against that in class?

Robert Spencer: Well, you can point out that there are people you can point to who were Jews and who were Christians who really were participating in the founding of the United States. And there were Jews who were participating in the American Revolution right from the beginning. As a matter of fact there was a very significant, I believe his name was Haym Salomon, a very significant figure in the political career of George Washington and the ability of the Continental Army to sustain itself was this supporter who was Jewish. And so you have Jews and Christians from the beginning of the United States. You don’t have any Muslims there (contrary to Obama’s fantasy). So the idea that there is something newly minted and manipulative or propagandistic about the Judeo–Christian is simply flying in the face of the facts. There really has been Jewish and Christian cooperation and a congruence in seeing the principles of the United States as worth founding and worth defending and a Jewish and Christian presence here, obviously, all through the history of the United States and Jews having been persecuted all over the world found this to be the most welcoming nation probably in the history of the world for the Jewish people, whereas Muslims were never present here at all. And when they came here, have been supremacist and antagonistic from the beginning, in demanding special privileges and so on that other groups are not accorded. So the claim that your professor is making is just more of this ahistorical modern man fantasy really.

Audience member: Okay. This will have to be the last question.

Robert Spencer: Okay.

Audience member: Well, it’s not a question, just an add–on to an excellent observation. There were of course synagogues during the colonial times and the first mosque in the United States was established, when? Does anybody know? Anybody in the room know? 1928 Omaha, first masque, first synagogues, George Washington Times. Thank you very much.

Robert Spencer: Thank you. Thank you, very much.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Student Association leader calls campus police over invitation to debate

Bangladesh: Muslims text death threats to two Christian bishops

Do we strike now or wait until Iran has nuclear weapons and face a nuclear catastrophe?

Today we can stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, or we can wait and suffer an unimaginable nuclear catastrophe.

Four nuclear sites are key to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Isfahan, Arak, Natanz and Qom. Isfahan and Arak are above ground and can be destroyed by air or sea launched missiles. Natanz is under an earth berm and reinforced concrete and Qom is built inside a mountain. The U.S. currently has ordinance that can penetrate these two facilities. with its Massive Ordinance Penetrators ( MOP’s). Iran has other nuclear weapons facilities as well but they a much less important.

Sanctions have had little effect on stopping Iran’s march toward nuclear weapons. It is increasingly apparent that the only way to stop Iran’s march toward developing nuclear weapons are targeted air strikes against these four sites. This may also stop Iran’s goal for a Persian Shiite Caliphate and terrorist activities that will surely result in an all out war between Shiites and the Sunni majority.

If the U.S. strikes Iran’s four major nuclear sites it will bear no relationship to the extended wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. No U.S. ground troops will be involved. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities likely will take only several days. If the U.S. fails to take action it is likely Israel will. However Israel’s ability to eliminate the threat is probably limited to Iran’s two above ground nuclear facilities. It may set Iran’s nuclear weapons program back a couple of years. However only the U.S. can set it back for many years or permanently.

If Israel takes preemptive action the U.S. will nevertheless be drawn into the fray. Iran knows Obama will not initiate military action, however Iran’s recent naval action attacking a mockup of a U.S. aircraft carrier is a warning to the U.S., if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities Iran will attack U.S. ships in the area.This was the purpose of Iran’s recent naval exercise sinking a mockup U.S. aircraft carrier. Under these circumstances the U.S. should take preemptive action and not wait to be attacked.

The U.S. can prevent nuclear proliferation and ultimately a nuclear catastrophe if it destroys the four key facilities from the air before Iran has nuclear weapons.  Without nuclear weapons Iran has limited options to strike America or Europe. Other nations who would like nuclear weapons are waiting to see what the U.S. does.

In 1939 the world was in a similar place. Hitler’s Nazi Germany could have been stopped before it  invaded Czechoslovakia which allowed Nazi Germany to build a massive war machine. England and France could have easily stopped Germany at that time. They failed to do so and over 60 million people died. We are in the same position now with Iran as England and France were then. We can only hope  U.S. leadership doesn’t repeat the 1939 mistakes. If the U.S. fails to take preemptive action soon a nuclear catastrophe in the future is inevitable.

Read this interesting analysis by Joshua Muravchik:

Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

The logical flaw in the indictment of a looming “very bad” nuclear deal with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered before Congress this month was his claim that we could secure a “good deal” by calling Iran’s bluff and imposing tougher sanctions. The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any “good deal” or by cheating.

This gives force to the Obama administration’s taunting rejoinder: What is Netanyahu’s alternative? War? But the administration’s position also contains a glaring contradiction. National security adviser Susan Rice declared at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference before Netanyahu’s speech that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” So if Iran will accept only a “bad deal,” what is President Obama’s alternative? War?

Obama’s stance implies that we have no choice but to accept Iran’s best offer — whatever is, to use Rice’s term, “achievable” — because the alternative is unthinkable.

But should it be? What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality. Ideology is the raison d’etre of Iran’s regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world. Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond. A nuclear arsenal, even if it is only brandished, would vastly enhance Iran’s power to achieve that goal.

Such visionary regimes do not trade power for a mess of foreign goods. Materialism is not their priority: They often sacrifice prosperity to adhere to ideology. Of course, they need some wealth to underwrite their power, but only a limited amount. North Korea has remained dirt poor practicing its ideology of juche, or self-reliance, but it still found the resources to build nuclear weapons.

Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result. Sanctions could succeed if they caused the regime to fall; the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and of apartheid in South Africa, led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those states. But since 2009, there have been few signs of rebellion in Tehran.

Otherwise, only military actions — by Israel against Iraq and Syria, and through the specter of U.S. force against Libya — have halted nuclear programs. Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.

Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

Much the same may be said in reply to objections that airstrikes might not reach all the important facilities and that Iran would then proceed unconstrained by inspections and agreements. The United States would have to make clear that it will hit wherever and whenever necessary to stop Iran’s program. Objections that Iran might conceal its program so brilliantly that it could progress undetected all the way to a bomb apply equally to any negotiated deal with Iran.

And finally, wouldn’t Iran retaliate by using its own forces or proxies to attack Americans — as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia — with new ferocity? Probably. We could attempt to deter this by warning that we would respond by targeting other military and infrastructure facilities.

Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran’s drive to the bomb. Were Iran, which is already embroiled in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, further emboldened by becoming a “nuclear threshold state,” it would probably overreach, kindling bigger wars — with Israel, Arab states or both. The United States would probably be drawn in, just as we have been in many other wars from which we had hoped to remain aloof.

Yes, there are risks to military action. But Iran’s nuclear program and vaunting ambitions have made the world a more dangerous place. Its achievement of a bomb would magnify that danger manyfold. Alas, sanctions and deals will not prevent this.

RELATED ARTICLE: An End to Iran’s Containment? – Editorial (Washington Post)