Posts

Just When You Thought The World Couldn’t Get More Idiotic

Here’s the latest installment in the Annals of Idiocy: “Inclusiveness: a European Commissioner recommends no longer using ‘Christmas,’ ‘Christian’ names and the masculine,” translated from “Inclusivité : une commissaire européenne recommande de ne plus utiliser “Noël”, les noms “chrétiens” et le masculin,” Valuers Actuelles, November 29, 2021 (thanks to Medforth):

European Equality Commissioner Helena Dalli launched an internal guide for inclusive communication at the end of October. This prohibits a number of expressions deemed to be stigmatizing according to gender, sexual identities, ethnic origins or culture, the Italian daily Il Giornale revealed on Sunday (November 28). These recommendations aim to “reflect diversity” and to fight against “stereotypes deeply rooted in individual and collective behavior.”

One “stereotype” that racists have is that many black people have names like “Dequan” and “Lashonda” and “Takeesha.” So in order to combat that stereotype, all such names should be banned. No sense giving white racists grist for their mill.

Using Italian names for gangsters in movies about the Mafia simply reinforces stereotypes about “Italo-American” criminals. The only solution is to make sure that no Italian names are used for Mafia members. “Henry” and “Charles” are acceptable as gangster names, but “Enrico” and “Carlo” are not. No Mafia gangster should be shown either cooking, or eating, a plate of pasta. Garlic should also not be mentioned.

Similarly, in a movie about Mexican drug traffickers, their names must not lead anyone to think that they are in any way “Mexican”; that would not be fair, as such names would only reinforce a “stereotype” that far too many of us unthinkingly accept. Give them names like “Randolph” and “James” and “Alice.” Under no conditions should any Mexican drug trafficker be called “El Chapo” or “El Gordo” or “El Mata Amigos.”

In general, the report suggests that no one should be identified on the basis of their particularity or in a way that is not [sic] offensive. For example, the use of the masculine form “by default” should be prohibited and the salutation “Dear Sir or Madam” should be replaced by “Dear Colleague.” Gender-specific terms such as “workmen” should also not be used. As the document – Dalli’s internal guide –is written in English, some recommendations are not applicable to other languages. The text also provides that one should never ” imply ” a person’s sexual orientation or even their gender identity. Similarly, it considers that a reference to elements of Christian culture “assumes that all people are Christians.” It therefore recommends deleting the reference to Christmas and speaking instead of “holidays.” Christian names such as “Mary” or “John” should be banned, according to the Commissioner.

But how can you write, say, an application letter for an academic job and use as your salutation — as Helena Dalli recommends – “Dear Colleague”? You aren’t anyone’s “colleague” yet – that’s what you are applying to be – and use of that salutation would merely come across as presumptuous, and likely nip in the bud your chances to be hired.

To eliminate all gender specific names, start with the easy ones. Thus “workman” can become “worker.” But what do we do when we come, say, to weddings, where there is an insufficiently “inclusive” focus on the “man” and the “woman”? Revise the text. “Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband” should instead become “Do you take this man or woman or non-binary other, to be your lawful wedded husband or wife or non-binary other”? Eventually it might be a good idea to provide a single word that can refer equally to both “husband” and “wife.” We’re working on it.

Using the “masculine” form “by default” should. be avoided, according to Helena Dalli, EU Equal Opportunities Commissioner, working tirelessly to make the world a better place by erasing all distinctions. But “Dear Sir or Madam” doesn’t use the “masculine” form “by default” – it carefully allows, in full diversity-inclusivity-equity mode, both the masculine and the feminine possibilities.

The claim that a reference to “elements of Christian culture” necessarily “assumes that all people are Christian” is utter nonsense. If I mention “the Bamiyan Buddhas,” does this make me guilty of assuming “that all people are Buddhist”? If I write that “the holiday of Diwali is observed differently by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists, creating a rich tapestry of cultural traditions and customs,” have I thereby assumed that everybody in the world is either “Hindu, Jain, Sikh, or Buddhist”? If I mention “Hanukkah” or a menorah, or show on YouTube a lesson on “how to spin a dreidl,” have I assumed that everyone in the world is “Jewish”? Should all references to the Bible be eliminated, because such references would be unacceptable, as “too Christian” or too “Judeo-Christian”? Surely we can’t have that in our brave new world that hath such creatures in it as Helena Dalli. Indeed, as the Bible itself is a venerable vehicle for what we now recognize as sexism, why not go beyond forbidding the reading of the Bible, and make possession of the book itself a crime?

Helena Dalli, the powerful EU Commissioner, thinks we need to rid the world of names that are too linked to Christianity. She mentions as examples of names that must no longer be used “Mary” and “John.” But these are just the names that come immediately to mind. We need to get rid as well of other names smacking of Christianity, including “Peter,” “Simon,” Thomas,” “Joseph,” “Martha,” “Christopher,” George” (which makes one think of “Saint George”), “Andrew,” “Samuel” and so many more names that are “too Christian” for Christians – or anyone else — to use.

But why does Helena Dalli not mention the need to abolish names that are “too connected” to the religion of Islam? Why should “Mary” and “John” be eliminated, but “Mohammed” and its many variants — Mahmoud, Ahmad, Muhammad, Magomed, Mahmad, Mehmet, Mamadou, Muhammadu, Mahamed, Mohamad, Mohamed, Mohammad, and so on – be tolerated inside the EU? Helena Dalli should provide us with a list of names that she believes are unacceptably linked to religions other than Christianity, the sole faith she mentions and for which she appears to bear a deep animus. Then we can get to work banning those names as well.

She’s also against mention of the very word “Christmas.”

Even the expression “colonizing of Mars” is considered negative, as it would be reminiscent of colonialism, and should be replaced by the phrase “sending people to Mars.” The report [by Helena Dalli] also advocates a form of positive discrimination. It suggests not convening working groups where only one gender is represented and thinking about inviting people from different ethnicities to events and photo shoots. Helena Dalli has already been criticized for the polemical campaign “Freedom with the Hijab” and the participation of Islamist associations in the campaign.

It will be fascinating to see if the EU Commissioner manages to make every single working group at the EU “gender diverse.” How will such a rule work in practice, particularly with the Muslims, whose unequal treatment of men and woman is legitimized in the Qur’an itself and who insist even on separating male from female worshippers in the mosque?

A verse in the Quran – 4:34 – gives husbands the right to “beat” their wives if they even suspect them of “disobedience.” Honor killings by Muslim men of their wives, daughters, sisters, and daughters-in-law – which may be prompted by a multitude of sins committed by females in the family, such as refusing to wear a hijab, or being seen talking to a non-Muslim boy – lead to very light punishment or in some cases to no punishment at all. The misogyny of Islam can also be seen in the fact that a Muslim woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, and a daughter inherits only half what a son receives. Will Helena Dalli be able to force Muslim males to include females in their meetings? I suspect she will not even try. Her desire to impose restrictions of all kinds on “religions” ends up with her applying her humorless and bizarre restrictions to one religion only – Christianity.

As for doing away with the very word “Christmas,” the cast of Seinfeld, trying to be as ridiculous as possible, already provided some years ago a different word for that day, even less “Christian” than the word “holiday” (which derives from “holy day”); they called it “Festivus.” That should please Helena Dalli. A Festivus Tree, Festivus Lights, Festivus Presents, Festivus Cards. What’s not to like?

I know what you’re thinking. You are thinking that her idiocy will be rejected all those who have kept their wits about them, that the thinking world will rise up and laugh to scorn Ms./Mrs.Mr./Non-binary/Equal opportunity Helena Dalli. But she’s not just some Hyde Park Corner lunatic; she’s the EU Equal Opportunities Commissioner. In that post she can do – she’s already done — a lot of damage. She needs not just to be laughed at, but to be relieved of her position. Please, EU, put her, and therefore us, out of her misery.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Another Muslim rape gang busted, 39 men plus three women who allowed premises to be used

Turkey: One in three women has been a victim of domestic violence

France: Government organizes Islamic exhibitions to teach the French to accept cultural differences

Ilhan Omar plays audio of death threat she claims she received on her voicemail

Australia: Muslim family stabs daughter at shopping center because she was dating a Christian

UN holds pro-Palestinian conference on anniversary of recognizing Israeli statehood

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ALMOST NONE of the 82,000 Afghans Airlifted From Kabul in August Were Vetted Before Coming to the U.S.

My latest in PJ Media:

Back in September, Old Joe Biden’s teleprompter offered some reassurance to the American people: “Planes taking off from Kabul are not flying directly to the United States. They’re landing at U.S. military bases and transit centers around the world. At these sites where they are landing, we are conducting thorough scrutiny — security screenings for everyone who is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.” Will it really surprise you, after ten months of this hard-Left, habitually dishonest administration, to discover that he was lying?

The reality is that almost none of the 82,000 Afghans who are now in the United States after being airlifted out of Kabul in August were vetted first. There could be any number of jihad terrorists and other criminals among them, but there is no way to know for sure until they actually commit crimes. Until then, celebrate diversity!

This revelation comes from a memo that Senate Republicans drafted in October, in which, according to a Wednesday report in the Washington Examiner, “senior officials across the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and Justice described a disastrous screening and vetting process.” This process relied completely on databases of criminals and terrorists, which were incomplete in the best of times and even less useful in the chaotic situation of the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden administration officials accepted at face value what these Afghan evacuees told them about themselves, without making any effort at all to check whether or not the evacuees’ claims were true.

What’s more, the Examiner reports that “the large majority of people, approximately 75%, evacuated were not American citizens, green card holders, Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders, or applicants for the visa.” The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) was given to Afghans who aided U.S. forces during our twenty-year misadventure in the country. As bad as the 75% figures was, it represented a slight improvement over the situation at the beginning of September, when Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted that “of the 60,000 Afghans who have entered the U.S., nearly 8,000 are either U.S. citizens or residents, while about 1,800 are SIV holders, having obtained visas after assisting the U.S. military.” That is, 52,000, or 86 percent, were not U.S. citizens or SIV holders. However, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) noted in early November that as of the beginning of October, only 700 of the 82,000 Afghans who had already been brought to the United States had SIVs.

Biden himself wasn’t the only one who promised that the Afghans they were bringing into the United States by the thousands would be thoroughly vetted. State Department wonk Ned Price was just as firm: “Before anyone who is evacuated from Afghanistan comes to this country, they undergo a rigorous vet. Unless and until they complete that vet they will not be in a position to come to the U.S.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York: Muslim aids Islamic State, says ‘there will come a time where people will only know to say Allahu Akbar’

Biden Administration Didn’t Actually Bother Vetting Afghan Refugees

India, November 26, 2008: Islamic Jihadis Execute Mumbai Jihad Massacres, Apologists Claimed It Was Hindu Terror

Germany: Refugees from Muslim countries protest call to prayer, they had to listen to it while being tortured

EDIORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Should Academic Departments Have Foreign Policies?

When did academic departments decide they had to declare themselves on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute but on no other foreign policy question? And why are they so eager to express their visceral hatred of the Jewish state? A report on this disturbing phenomenon is here: “Academic departments must steer clear of anti-Israel activism,” by Richard L. Cravatts, Israel Hayom, November 12, 2021:

The obsessive loathing of Israel by large swathes of academia was evident this past spring as Hamas showered Israeli population centers with more than 4,000 rockets and mortars. Instead of denouncing genocidal aggression on the part of Hamas, these woke, virtue-signaling moral narcissists took it upon themselves to condemn – in the loudest and most condemnatory terms — the Jewish state, not the homicidal psychopaths intent on murdering Jews….

There is a difference between an individual expressing an opinion on, say, social media. That opinion is his alone. No pressure has been placed on him to express it. But when academic departments put out what are presented as that department’s — presumably unanimous — opinion, those who may not agree with the majority seldom dare to express their minority opinion in the daggers-drawn atmosphere of current academic life, where dissent is only for the tenured, and even they must be very brave, to express solidarity with, or sympathy for, the embattled Jewish state that has been so demonized in the swamps of academe.

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and professor emeritus of English, challenged the propriety of departments authoring statements of support for the Palestinian cause while vilifying and denouncing Israel in the process. Four academic units at Illinois had issued anti-Israel statements in the spring – the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Asian American Studies, and the Department of History – prompting Nelson and 43 of his fellow faculty to write a letter to Chancellor Robert Jones and Provost Andreas Cangellaris.

In that letter, the faculty noted that “the statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments … [and] have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.”…

These “departmental opinions” are the result of an atmosphere of intellectual intimidation, with those not subscribing to the majority view nonetheless being “spoken for.” Did absolutely every faculty member, for example, in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, agree that Israel is an arch-villain? Or was such an opinion presented by a handful of anti-Israel activists, without the agreement or even, possibly, the knowledge, of all of that department’s members? Did the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies decide, as in the Soviet Union, that “for the good of the Party” no dissent could be allowed and simply rode roughshod over those who dared to even mildly disagree with the kind of hysterical language that is used to blacken Israel’s image? And did the members of that same department not know, or not care, that it is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience”? It is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their menfolk, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often receive no punishment at all. It is Israel that guarantees the legal equality of men and women, and it is the Palestinians who violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it rages against those who defend their rights.

Academic life is supposed to be dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of the truth. Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, professors have the great privilege of time – time to investigate matters of interest to them, time to weigh competing claims, time to analyze, to praise and to blame. The May conflict was only a few days old when academic departments issued their summary judgments against Israel. There is a rush to judgment when it comes to Israel. What led these departments to think they had to express the “department’s” opinion, instead of letting individual faculty members have their say, or if they wished, choose to say nothing at all? Why this insensate urge to force a false consensus, through veiled threats of retribution if someone fails to toe the anti-Israel line – threats that too often are successful? Those who disagree with the consensus find it more prudent to simply remain silent, rather than make enemies of fellow members of the department. For non-tenured faculty, it’s obvious why such a choice is made. But even tenured faculty may want to keep their heads down, avoid trouble, concentrate on their own work, and hope that the madness passes.

For academic departments to pronounce with such authority, on things they know so little, or nothing, about, is intolerable. Academics who have no special knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict presume that their opinions deserve special respect. They should be heeded simply because they are professors, no matter how distant their field may be from what they pontificate about. As an example, let’s look at how four departments at the University of Illinois presented what we were to assume were the collective views of its members.

Let’s start with the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois, which denounces Israel in hysterical terms, charging it with the “illegal occupation of Palestinian land”; a “siege, indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza”; “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people”; and, echoing the venomous blood libel promoted by Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, among others, the “deliberate maiming of Palestinian bodies.”

First, there is no “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” Israel, in a war of self-defense started in May by Gamal Abdel Nasser, won by force of arms both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank). The victory in the Six-Day War did not create Israel’s claim to these territories, but allowed it to exercise its preexisting claim. Israel has a right, under the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, to establish “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? All the land from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west – the land that the League of Nations intended to be part of the future Jewish National Home. Have these professors of urban planning read the Mandate for Palestine? The San Remo Treaty? Article 80 of the U.N. Charter? U.N. Security Council Resolution 242? Don’t be silly.

Israel gave up Gaza in 2005, pulling out all 8,500 Israelis who had been living the Strip. There is no “siege” of Gaza, as the Department of Urban Planning at the University of Illinois insists. Electricity, water, and natural gas are all supplied by Israel to the people of Gaza. There is no attempt to keep out any medicines or food. There is a blockade, but that is on goods that can be used by the terror group Hamas, which has run Gaza since 2007, in attacks on Israel. Thus, the supplies allowed into Gaza of some building materials, such as cement, are limited. For they are deemed to be “dual-use” materials, because they can be used innocuously to build apartments, but can also be used to build such things as emplacements for rocket launchers and terror tunnels.

There are no “indiscriminate destruction and massacres in Gaza.” Israeli pilots pinpoint their targets; there is no carpet bombing. Hamas places its weapons, its rocket launchers, its command-and-control centers, in or next to schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, even mosques. Israel tries very hard to minimize civilian casualties. When a target has been chosen, the Israelis warn inhabitants to leave the building, through various means – telephoning, leafletting, emailing, and use of the “knock-on-the-roof” technique. Ordinarily the Palestinians have between 15 minutes and two hours to leave. There have been no “massacres in Gaza.” In the 11-day conflict this past May, of the 260 Palestinians killed, 225 of them were determined, through the tracking of death notices, to have been Hamas fighters; 25 of them were senior commanders of the terror group. Only a few dozen of those killed could have been civilians. And there were no reports of any “massacres.” The professors in the Department of Urban Planning were simply throwing in Israel’s direction whatever grotesque charges they could fabricate against the Jewish state, counting on some of it to stick.

Similarly, there has been no “state-sanctioned execution of Palestinian people.” The IDF, as British Colonel Richard Kemp has noted, is the “most moral army in the world.” It makes heroic efforts to protect civilian lives through every possible method of warning inhabitants in or near buildings soon to be hit. Israeli pilots have been known to call off their mission if they spot children too near to the target; this happened several times during the May war.

Let’s look at the less extreme statement of the History Department at the same university.

The Executive Committee of the Department of History issued a briefer statement by email that condemned “the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza” and “standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation” – “liberation” being a euphemism for the Middle East without Israel and free of Jewish sovereignty on Muslim land.

The statement was put out in an email, as if all members of the History Department agreed to its contents. By what right did the “Executive Committee” presume to speak for the whole department? And why does it describe as Israeli “state violence” a war that began on May 10, when Hamas launched hundreds of rockets at civilian areas of Israel, and Israel did what any nation-state would do – it fought back in defense of its people, hitting in response Hamas rockets, rocket launchers, command-and-control centers, fighters, and a network of terror tunnels? What should Israel have done? Simply let those 4,500 rockets that Hamas flung toward Israeli cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon land without trying to hit back, in self-defense, at Hamas – its weapons depots, its rocket launchers, its fighters – so that it could no longer launch those rockets? Why is this self-defense described as “state violence”? Would America have done differently?

As for that claim of “standing in solidarity with Palestine , and support or the struggle for Palestinian liberation,” as Richard Cravatts, correctly notes, that is code for the replacement of Israel, “from the river to the sea,” by a Palestinian state. That’s what the History Department’s members – all of them – are made to seemingly endorse. How many of them are happy with that?

Immersed in the ideology of multiculturalism and the intersectionality of oppression, the Department of Asian American Studies condemned “the ongoing 73 years of settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people” and “the exploitation, theft and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine. To this, we say no more.”

According to the Department of Asian-American Studies, then, since its very founding in 1948, Israel has been engaged in “settler-colonial violence against Palestine and the Palestinian people.” But there were no “settlers” in 1948, or 1958, or 1968. There was “violence” in 1948, but it was the violence started by five Arab armies that attacked the Jewish state on May 15, 1948, ignoring Israel’s offer of peace, as they tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent state of Israel. Israel was fighting for its survival, as it would have to again do so in the wars of 1967 and 1973. Those people denounced as “settler-colonials” in 1948 consisted of the following: Jews whose families had been living uninterruptedly in the Land of Israel for centuries; Zionist pioneers who had, beginning in about 1900, been making aliyah, buying land from Arab and Turkish landowners and settling on it; Jews who had fled Arab lands where they had lived for centuries, with many more of them –some 850,000 in all – fleeing in the late 1940s and early 1950s, with most of them choosing to settle in Israel; Jews who had managed to escape from Europe just before World War II; Jews who had survived the Nazis and arrived in Israel from DP camps after the war. These were the people, so many of them survivors of terrible ordeals in Europe and in Arab lands, who are now being denounced by this all-knowing “Department of Asian-American Studies” in Illinois as “settler-colonials,” for managing to find refuge in what would become, in 1948, the tiny Jewish state, and then for helping to rebuild that ancient Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel.

Another point to consider: the Asian-American Studies Department statement includes this: “the exploitation, theft, and colonization of land and labor everywhere, including in Palestine.” So, we are told, this “exploitation, theft, and colonization” by Jews goes on everywhere, including Palestine. Isn’t this a statement that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf?

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies signed a statement, “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity with Palestinian Feminist Collective,” along with some 100 other gender-studies departments. With the characteristic pseudo-intellectual babble that currently dilutes the scholarly relevance of the social sciences and humanities, the “solidarity statement” pretentiously announced that “as gender-studies departments in the United States, we are the proud benefactors of decades of feminist anti-racist, and anti-colonial activism that informs the foundation of our interdiscipline” [sic] and that “‘Palestine is a Feminist Issue.’”…

The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies asserts that “Palestine is a Feminist Issue.” And so it is, but not in the way the good professors in the department seem to think. To repeat what I wrote yesterday on the subject: It is the Palestinians who, as Muslims, allow husbands to “beat” their wives should they be even suspected of “disobedience,” it is the Palestinians who engage in “honor killings” of girls and women by their husbands, fathers, brothers, who may then be let off with a short prison sentence, or too often, receive no punishment at all. It Is the Palestinians who enforce dress codes on “their women,” who value the testimony of females as half that of males; who have girls and women inherit half what a male inherits. Israel, by contrast, guarantees the legal and social equality of men and women, while the Palestinians violate that equality at every turn, yet here is the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies standing foursquare with those who mistreat women, while it inveighs against those who defend their rights.

Three points suggest themselves:

First, let every man and woman speak for himself or herself. Don’t force people into letting their Department speak for them. Not even professors should be made to suffer that.

Second, academics, like cobblers, should stick to their last.

Third, “whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak.”

Come to think of it, the third point is really just the second one, expressed less succinctly. But it bears repetition.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Labour MP claims Muslims are ‘suffering racial hatred’ after Liverpool jihad suicide bombing

Austria: Muslima had hundreds of images of ‘executions of unbelievers,’ wanted to sacrifice her life for ISIS

Nigeria: Muslims have murdered over 137,000 people in Benue state

France: Muslim prisoner screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two guards

Austria: Public broadcaster deletes report on persecution of Christians and Jews in Europe, without explanation

UN envoy: Taliban ‘unable to stem’ Islamic State growth as it spreads to ‘nearly all’ Afghan provinces

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hamas-linked CAIR accuses College Democrats of America of ‘Islamophobia’

Democrats supporting Israel’s self-defense against the “Palestinian” jihad? That isn’t allowed. Hamas-linked CAIR is ensuring that the miscreants get back in line, and pronto. Independent thought? Pshaw! That’s only for “right-wingers.”

Muslim advocacy group accuses College Democrats of ‘Islamophobia

by Sean Salai, Washington Times, November 12, 2021:

A Muslim advocacy group is accusing the College Democrats of America of “Islamophobia” for harassing one of their officers on social media over pro-Palestinian comments she made online as a child.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this week called in a letter for the Democratic Party-affiliated group to open an “independent investigation” with the intent of disciplining or expelling the unnamed members who “repeatedly harassed” Rollins College senior Nourhan Mesbah on social media when she ran successfully for national vice president in August.

The harassment includes the members’ “liking” a social media comment that read in part: “Boot this jihadist out, no room for racist totalitarianism,” CAIR says.

In the letter sent this week to College Democrats President Jalen Miller, CAIR’s national deputy director Edward Mitchell also accuses the CDA members of “weaponizing” an “anti-Muslim” political ad against Ms. Mesbah over the pro-Palestinian comment she said she regretted making online as a 13-year-old.

“Anti-Muslim bigotry is not unique to any particular party, and no party is immune to it,” Mr. Mitchell told The Washington Times on Friday.

“The perception is that only the Republicans have a problem with Muslims, but the truth is that you find Islamaphobia [sic] on the Democratic side, too,” he added.

Ms. Mesbah declined to discuss the incident, which erupted after the ad featuring her childhood comment prompted fellow College Democrats to accuse her of antisemitism and push for her censure.

The letter includes testimony from several Muslim members of the organization, including College Democrats Muslim Caucus Chair Tyrese Rice, who complained on Ms. Mesbah’s behalf about the “bigoted and imbalanced implications of the organization” at both the state and national levels.

“There was a lack of Muslim representation and an underlying stigma against discussion [of] related topics and concepts,” Mr. Rice said about the College Democrats when he first joined them.

Another comment in the letter from an anonymous student says CDA perpetuates a culture of hostility toward “Palestinian liberation” and silences Muslim students who speak up about it.

“By creating a space to allow Muslim members to be called ‘jihadist[s]’ among other names, we have abandoned our progressive ideals,” the student writes.

The College Democrats have not responded to Mr. Mitchell’s letter, and their spokesman did not respond Friday to telephone and email requests for comment.

Reached Friday afternoon, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the dispute….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Police conceal face of Muslim migrant rapist of 15-year-old girl in asking people to watch for him

Bangladesh: Hindu population steadily declining in the face of Muslim persecution

Burkina Faso: Muslims murder at least 19 people in jihad raid on military police post

UK taxpayers to back solar project in Turkey up to $291,000,000

Turkey: No Budget from Government for Schools Run by Armenians, Jews and Greeks

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Just What You’ve Been Waiting For: Benetton is Now Offering a Unisex Hijab!

My latest in PJ Media:

As American society, and Western society in general, progresses from glory to glory and grows more woke by the day, the trendy Italian brand United Colors of Benetton is offering an exciting new item, just in time for the Christmas season: a unisex hijab. It’s described as a “unisex hijab in stretch fabric. Multicolor monogram print with Benetton logo joined to the G of Ghali. Small logo printed on the left side. This accessory belongs to the ‘United Colors of Ghali’ capsule collection, created by Ghali.”

One wonders who Benetton execs think will want this item. After all, the hijab is prescribed in Islamic law specifically for women. The idea of a man wearing one would be considered absurd because the whole idea of a hijab is to remove the source of temptation for men. If a man is tempted anyway and a woman ends up being sexually assaulted or raped, it’s her fault. Because the hijab is an important part of a woman’s responsibility under Sharia, many women have been brutalized and even killed for not wearing it.

There are, unfortunately, numerous available examples of this brutalization, and many others whom we will never know because such matters are often not considered news fit to print in Sharia states. In Mississauga, Ontario a few years ago, Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia, was also murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. 40 women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. Fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment.

A mid-October incident in Egypt reinforced the idea that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women, and a pretext for their brutalization. A female pharmacist named Isis Mustafa went to work as usual at a health facility in the village of Kfar Atallah; however, on this day something was different: Mustafa was not wearing a hijab. According to the Arabic-language El Balad, Mustafa’s female colleagues were enraged. They set upon her, beat her, and dragged her by her uncovered hair.

So why would a man wear a hijab? To ward off the advances of other men? To remove a source of temptation from gay Muslims? In a majority-Muslim country, a man who wore a hijab would likely be considered insane. In the woke West in 2021, such a man is making a fashion statement.

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Yemen: Model charged with ‘violating Islamic dress codes’ imprisoned for five years

Finally: Pentagon Ratcheting Up Efforts to Get Americans Out of Afghanistan

The UK Muslim, CIA Operative, and Author of ‘I Posed as a Man Online for Sex’ Behind the Dems’ Censorship Campaign

Germany: Churches criticized for remaining ‘incredibly mute’ in the face of ‘Muslim contempt for Christians’

Mozambique: Islamic State grows in strength and brutality, while broadening international ties

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Poland vows to ‘defend Europe’ from ‘migrant invasion’ unleashed by Belarusian dictator Lukashenko

Lukashenko’s motive:

Brussels accuses Belarus’s disputed leader of provoking the influx in retaliation against EU sanctions, imposed after his widely discredited re-election and subsequent crackdown on mass protests.

Days ago, Bulgaria sent 350 troops to the Turkish border as illegal Afghan migrant crossings tripled. “Migrants have described how Belarusian authorities seized their phones and pushed them towards the border fence. Overnight temperatures at the border have slumped below zero and several people have already died in recent weeks.”

But aside from political reasons, since the Syrian migrant crisis of 2015 and beyond, Poland has demonstrated its resolve in defending its borders and sovereignty from an invasion of Muslim migrants, while the EU undermined Polish efforts, relentlessly pressuring Poland (and Hungary) to take in migrant “quotas.”

During the Syrian crisis, the Islamic State found success in infiltrating the refugee stream, thanks to reckless politicians. The risk from jihadist infiltration of countries with open borders is no less now with the influx of refugees from Afghanistan.

While most of the globalist EU supports open, unvetted migration, as well as the UK’s Boris Johnson government, despite the fact that Britain left the EU due to open-door immigration.

Warsaw called the “action ‘an invasion’ and declared it was sending 12,000 troops to reinforce 10,000 already stationed along the frontier.” This should serve as an example to other EU countries, some of which are beginning to wake up. 12 EU countries were recently rejected by the EU for their request for EU financing to help build barrier walls to keep out illegal migration from Afghanistan, which presents obvious security issues.

We will defend our country and the entire EU’: Polish soldiers force back hundreds of migrants at the border with pepper spray after Belarus dictator Lukashenko sent 1,000 refugees to invade

by Will Stewart, Ed Wight, Ross Ibbetson, and David Averre, MailOnline, November 8, 2021:

Poland has vowed to ‘defend Europe’ from a ‘migrant invasion’ unleashed by Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko whose forces have coerced more than 1,000 refugees to smash through the border.

Desperate migrants gathered at the Belarusian frontier with Poland on Monday, attempting to hack down a barbed-wire fence only to meet a phalanx of Polish guards who forced them back with pepper spray.

Middle Eastern and African migrants have been flown into Belarus by Lukashenko who is using them as human cannon fodder in his battle with the EU, the US and Britain, after they imposed sanctions following a violent political crackdown, which included forcing a Ryanair flight from the sky in May.

Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said: ‘The Polish government is determined and we will defend the security of our country and the entire EU, respecting our international obligations and bearing in mind, above all, the interests of the state and the safety of Polish soldiers, Border Guard officers and citizens.’

Warsaw called today’s action ‘an invasion’ and declared it was sending 12,000 troops to reinforce 10,000 already stationed along the frontier.

Polish soldiers were seen pepper-spraying the migrants from behind a barbed-wire barrier as the desperate people tried to hack it down with branches and spades.

At other sections of the line, small children were held up by desperate parents who pleaded with the Polish forces to let them through, while others chanted: ‘Germany,’ renowned for its hospitality towards refugees.

Poland said on Monday it had repelled an attempt by hundreds of migrants to illegally cross the border with Belarus, but that thousands more were on the way and future attempts to breach its frontier could be ‘armed in nature’.

Defense Ministry video taken later Monday showed the migrants settling in for the night by the border, having put up scores of tents and cooking meals.

A NATO official called the use of migrants ‘a hybrid tactic’, meaning a combined military-political operation, and said: ‘NATO stands ready to further assist our allies, and maintain safety and security in the region’….

RELATED ARTICLE: Bangladesh: Muslims threaten Christian family, force them to leave their home, steal their land

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FBI again claims that ‘white supremacists’ pose as great a threat to the U.S. as Islamic State jihadis

You just don’t see “white supremacist” terror attacks and plots around the U.S., while any regular reader of Jihad Watch knows that there are Islamic State jihad plots caught here fairly often.

Why is that?

Are “white supremacists” better able to cover their tracks? Or is the whole idea of a massive “white supremacist” terror threat an attempt to silence and destroy the political opposition by first smearing it as “white supremacist” and then as terrorist?

White supremacist threat to US as great as Islamic State, FBI tells Congress

by Alex Woodward, Independent, November 4, 2021:

Federal law enforcement has once again warned members of Congress that white supremacists and other domestic extremists pose as great a threat to the US as Islamic State militants, a familiar warning to lawmakers after repeated advisories have pointed to the rise of racist violence and conspiracy theories that have proliferated online.

Officials with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security also told…

RELATED ARTICLES:

CARTELVILLE USA: Mexican Drug Cartels Take Over Small Town California

Shocking and Frightful Video of Immigrants Across Europe Causing Chaos

Pakistan: Muslims attack and fire upon Christians in order to seize their lands

VIDEO: ‘Inside the World of Sharia’ by Anni Cyrus

Muslim Migrant Goes on Knife Rampage On High Speed Train in Germany, 3 STABBED

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Soldiers Forced to Bunk Outdoors While Afghan Refugees Slept in Their Barracks

Afghans first, Americans last.

In 2019, members of the 2nd Battalion, 127th Infantry returned home from Afghanistan. In early October, the 127th left Appleton, Wisconsin and traveled to Fort McCoy for training.

Unfortunately, Fort McCoy was already occupied by an estimated 13,000 Afghan “refugees”.

According to Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has paid several visits to Fort McCoy, the base only has the capacity to house 10,000 people, and is struggling to cope with the overflow in tents. When they first arrived some 600 Afghans had been quarantined with a variety of infectious conditions.

Fort McCoy, located in rural Wisconsin between the small cities of Sparta and Tomah, started out as an artillery range and its barracks were intended to house military personnel arriving for training exercises, not huge numbers of foreign migrants. The barracks, which were built during World War II, are in poor condition and a new construction project only recently got underway.

Even while hosting the largest population of Afghan migrants in the country, Fort McCoy struggled to maintain its training role. Over 100,000 troops had trained there during the fiscal year with personnel from all of the services participating in everything from cold weather operations (it gets pretty cold in that part of the country) and various exercises.

When the 127th arrived, the barracks they were meant to sleep in had already been taken. With Afghans sleeping in their barracks and their beds, they reportedly had to sleep outside instead.

“The summers are warm and wet; the winters are freezing, snowy, and windy,” is how the local weather has been described. In October the weather had begun its slow descent from warm and wet to freezing, but it was not the Afghans who were expected to deal with the weather.

According to a Department of Defense spokesperson, “The 2-127 Infantry Battalion was offered access to the hard structures in the field, as the barracks on post are currently occupied by our Afghan guests.” The spokesperson also insisted that, “There were no unexpected weather events during the training and no impact to the Fort McCoy mission or training for the service members.” And yet according to some the impact on morale has been quite serious.

The displacement of American soldiers to make way for Afghan migrants was symbolic of events in Washington D.C. and at Fort McCoy where refugee meals closely follow Islamic Sharia and liquor was removed from the shelves of the PX so as not to offend the Afghans.

The men of the “Red Arrow” are used to challenges. With a history that includes the Iron Brigade of the Civil War and the Les Terribles in WWI, and as members of the Wisconsin National Guard, they’re not afraid of weather. But the displacement drove home to them where the priorities of the military brass lie, not with the soldiers who served in Afghanistan, but the Afghans whom the Taliban waved past their terrorist checkpoints in Kabul and on to America.

Some no longer recognize Fort McCoy, divided into Afghan “neighborhoods” where the hated Shuras (an Islamic form of tribal governance) have been reconvened and are dictating to base personnel the way that they did during the failed “hearts and minds” efforts in Afghanistan.

The national media, which had little interest in Fort McCoy when it was filled with American heroes training to save lives and win wars, has swarmed over the place. The Today Show, among many others, has filmed canned propaganda segments touting carefully selected Afghan refugees, usually young, western, and female, who locals say are unrepresentative of the thousands of covered and frightened young women, many of them pregnant, in the barracks.

Sources say that reporters are asked to leave their cars behind in the visitor lot and then bused over to selected locations. Camera interviews are usually conducted at the main gate to avoid anything problematic in the background.

What are they worried about?

Since the Afghans swarmed into Fort McCoy, two Afghan refugees are federal facing charges, one for “attempting to engage in a sexual act with a minor” and another for “assaulting his spouse by strangling and suffocating her”. But that may only be the tip of a very large iceberg.

A leaked State Department document contained multiple reports of “child brides” and polygamous marriages at Fort McCoy. Wisconsin Democrats however tried to shut down reports by whistleblowers about the abuse of young girls happening right on our military bases.

“There are no cases in Fort McCoy right now with child, 15-or- under, who is married,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin contended in a very precisely worded denial leaving open the question of whether such cases had existed in the past or whether the children weren’t technically married.

Locals in nearby Sparta whose medical resources have been drafted into the Afghan refugee crisis however describe large numbers of pregnant women, some looking very young and a threatening atmosphere where calls to emergency services in the small city are a constant.

The media plays up stories of impoverished refugees, but sources say that the Fort McCoy Post Exchange keeps running out of smaller bills because the Afghan refugees have plenty of hundred dollar bills to spend. Not to mention credit cards and cell phones.

While locals have generously donated their own clothing, the Islamic Society of Milwaukee has been conducting its own clothing drive focused on hijabs and “traditional” and “modest clothing” for the women. The infidel clothes apparently weren’t sufficiently compliant with Sharia law.

Despite media disinformation, few if any of the Afghans were “interpreters”, many did not even speak English, and the vast majority had not received visas to come to the United States, When the Biden administration surrendered Kabul to the Taliban, it allowed the terrorist group to man the checkpoints and pick which Afghans (and Americans) were allowed to make it to the airport.

The Afghans who had legitimate visas based on their time working for the United States were not allowed through. Some may have been abducted and killed after the Biden administration turned over lists of visa recipients to the Taliban. Only 1,800 SIV visa holders made it here. Another 50,000 were Afghans who had no legal right to be here and once in this country began committing crimes and disappearing from the bases that were hosting them.

Many in Sparta are worried about what this influx of Afghan migrants means for them.

When Cuban refugees were housed at Fort McCoy, some stayed on in the area. Locals are concerned that history may repeat itself with the large number of Afghans. Even if only a few hundred are left behind, they could significantly change the character of the area.

To some locals, the sight of Americans being displaced by Afghans may be their future.

COLUMN BY:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Fails to Question Nominee for US Ambassador to Turkey about Terrorism

Afghanistan: Man sells 9-year-old daughter to buy food, begs 55-year-old husband not to beat her

An ‘Islamophobe’ Under Every Bush: Georgetown Fellow with CAIR Past Tries to Cancel Critics of Jihad

Twitter’s New ‘Curator’ for Middle East News has Long Anti-Israel History

Charity boss: “Taliban has a ‘kill list’ circulating, identifying LGBTQI+ persons”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Christian Persecution Group Wants to Know if Biden’s Muslim Religious Freedom Ambassador Will Help Non-Muslims

My latest in PJ Media:

Old Joe Biden’s handlers have chosen Rashad Hussain, who served during Obama’s first two terms as U.S. special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to succeed former Senator Sam Brownback as U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. Hussain went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week for a perfunctory hearing, but as is increasingly the case in Washington these days, the most important questions at hand weren’t asked. So now a group dedicated to protecting embattled Christians worldwide, the Save the Persecuted Christians organization, along with a number of allied groups and individuals, is asking them of Hussain directly.

The group on Monday sent Hussain an open letter, signed by notables including Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; Baroness Caroline Cox of the House of Lords; retired Air Force Col. Michael Onisick; radio host Eric Metaxas, Juliana Taimoorazy of the Iraqi Christian Relief Council; Amy Beam, author of The Last Yezidi Genocide; and many others. The letter asks Hussain pointed questions about Sharia, which is entirely justified given the fact that Hussain is clearly a devout and Sharia-adherent Muslim and Sharia quite clearly denies equality of rights to non-Muslims.

When he appointed Hussain his ambassador to the OIC back in 2010, Barack Obama proudly noted that his appointee was “a hafiz of the Qur’an,” that is, that he has memorized the entire Islamic holy book. That means he has memorized passages declaring that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6), that Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God are under the curse of Allah (Qur’an 9:30), and that Allah transformed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs (Qur’an 2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166). Hussain has likewise lovingly committed to memory the passage enjoining Muslims to “fight against those do not believe in Allah or the last day, and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, even if they are among the people of the book [that is, Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

None of that necessarily means that Hussain, as ambassador for international religious freedom, will slight reports of Islamic entities denying religious freedom to Christians or others. He may have some understanding of such Qur’anic passages that blunts their literal force. However, every nation that claims to implement Sharia today — including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — denies religious freedom in varying degrees to non-Muslims, as well as to Muslims who are considered heterodox. If Hussain believes that Sharia is the unalterable and perfect law of Allah, does he even believe that non-Muslims should have equality of rights in such countries?

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Belgium: Woman labeled ‘racist,’ badly beaten on bus after Muslim migrant hits her

Not A Joke: Taliban Asks for International Aid to Help It Fight…Climate Change

India: Catholic bishop charged with ‘promoting feelings of hatred’ for speaking against ‘love and narcotic jihad’

New Zealand: New charges for Muslim teen accused of death threats to non-Muslims

Amid Hizballah threats, Israel prepares for war, conducting drills for 2000 rockets per day

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s handlers send $144,000,000 in ‘aid’ to Taliban’s Afghanistan

Democrats fund terrorism the way that Republicans cut taxes. And so the Biden administration is determined to keep sending money to Afghanistan even after the Taliban takeover.

While Americans can’t afford to buy a house, put gas in their cars, or food on their plates, Biden’s sending $144 million to Afghanistan.

The United States announced Thursday it is providing nearly $144 million in new humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, where millions of people could face acute hunger this winter unless aid arrives soon.

National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne said in a statement the U.S. assistance will be directed through independent organizations that provide support directly to more than 18.4 million vulnerable Afghans, including Afghan refugees in neighboring countries.

Sending it through “independent organizations” provides plausible deniability when those organizations and their staffers…

1. Pay protection money to the Taliban and possibly even ISIS-K

2. Pay Taliban taxes

3. Hire Taliban personnel and contract with companies either directly controlled by the Taliban or that pay money to the Taliban

These are the primary mechanisms for directing aid money to the Taliban.

She noted that the additional funding brings the total U.S. humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees in the region to nearly $474 million in 2021, the largest amount of assistance from any nation.

Not actually something to brag about considering the only thing it’s done is armed and financed Islamic terrorists.

But Blinken insists that this time it’ll be different.

“To be clear, this humanitarian assistance will benefit the people of Afghanistan and not the Taliban, whom we will continue to hold accountable for the commitments they have made,” he asserted.

Asserted is the correct term. It’s a baseless assertion that is obviously and transparently false.

The official press release states that, “This assistance is provided directly to independent humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), International Organization for Migration (IOM), the World Health Organization (WHO), and other international and non-governmental organizations following extensive vetting and monitoring.”

As I warned in my article, “10% of Biden’s Afghanistan Aid Will Go To Taliban,” UN groups had signed up with the Taliban a long time ago.

The Taliban had set up its Commission for the Arrangement and Control of Companies and Organisations at least over a decade ago. Much like the old Afghan government, it made few distinctions between for-profit companies and non-profit charities, and taxed them both.

The Taliban at one point provided a list of non-profits that had registered with their Commission for the Arrangement and Control of Companies and Organisations. The group “included UN agencies, national and international NGOs and human rights organisations” including those that  “rely on funding from a wide range of sources, including both the UN and the US government”.

That was back in 2013 when the Taliban had far less power and were less intimidating.

Did Blinken’s vetting compare the list of “independent organizations” USAID will be funding with the list of those on the Taliban’s Commission? The information certainly exists, but you can bet that the State Department won’t release it or act on it.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Persecution group asks Religious Freedom appointee to clarify his views on Sharia hostility to religious freedom

Israel: Muslim given entry permit for humanitarian reasons, carries out multiple arson jihad attacks

Iraq: Mother protests marriage of 12-year-old, but Interior Ministry says ‘Sharia allows the marriage of a minor’

Germany: Foundation wants to put plaque next to Bible verses on Berlin City Palace cupola to avoid offending Muslims

Afghanistan: Taliban calls for international funding to support its efforts to fight climate change

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Just the Beginning: Ten Afghan Evacuees Detained as National Security Risks

My latest at PJ Media:

The Biden administration is giving America gifts that will keep on giving for generations to come, and one of the foremost of these gifts is the newly-arrived group of Afghan evacuees: 70,000 are now in the U.S., and the total number is expected to exceed 124,000 before long. One of Biden’s handlers, unnamed in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal report, has admitted that ten of these evacuees have already been detained as risks to national security. Only ten out of 70,000 isn’t bad, right? Sure. But Biden’s handlers’ catastrophic mishandling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan makes it virtually certain that there will be many more.

The reasons for this are clear. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas noted in late September that 60,000 Afghans had been brought to the United States by that time, including nearly 8,000 who were American citizens or residents of the country, and 1,800 had Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) issued to them for aiding the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

What about the rest? Mayorkas explained:

Of the over 60,000 individuals who have been brought into the United States [from Afghanistan]—and I will give you approximate figures and I will verify them, approximately 7 percent have been United States citizens. Approximately 6 percent have been lawful permanent residents. Approximately 3 percent have been individuals who are in receipt of the Special Immigrant Visas. The balance of that population are individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval who may qualify as SIVs and have not yet applied, who qualify or would qualify—I should say—as P-1 or P-2 refugees who have been employed by the United States government in Afghanistan and are otherwise vulnerable Afghan nationals, such as journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera.

The upshot of this is that over eighty percent of the Afghan evacuees were neither American citizens nor SIV holders. So who are they? No one knows. Certainly Biden’s handlers don’t. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) recently discovered that 12,000 of the Afghans who were sent to Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar and then went on to the U.S. were not just “individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval,” as Mayorkas put it, but had no identification at all. Issa stated: “They came with nothing. No Afghan I.D., no I.D. of any sorts. Those people were all forwarded on to the U.S., and that’s quite an admission. So many people had no I.D. whatsoever and yet find themselves in the United States today based on what they said.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Afghan Terror Threat:  Americans are still left behind, and ISIS is growing in strength.

Liars: Ilhan Omar, CNN, WaPo, Daily Beast Accuse Ted Cruz of Defending Nazi Salute

Congressman says terrorists are crossing border ‘at a level we have never seen before,’ DHS says that’s ‘inaccurate’

Kansas City: Student denounces teacher for criticizing Islam, teacher is placed on leave

Spain: Muslim migrant rapes 15-year-old girl, authorities dismiss such cases by saying ‘It’s their custom’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Impeach Kamala Harris for Afghanistan Betrayal

Impeachment ensures Kamala and her boss won’t get any more Americans killed.

“Were you the last person in the room?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Kamala Harris.

“Yes,” Kamala Harris nodded.

“And you feel comfortable?”

“I do,” she replied.

The subject under discussion was Biden’s disastrous decision to pull out of Afghanistan, preceding a civilian withdrawal with a military pullout, failing to coordinate with allies, and ultimately creating the nation’s greatest hostage crisis while arming the Taliban terrorists.

Kamala had boasted of being the ’last person in the room’ when Biden makes big decisions. When Biden decided to betray Americans and aid the Taliban, it was no different. Afterward the ‘last person in the room’ was also the last person to want to answer questions about her role in the fateful decision that killed 13 American military personnel and revived Al Qaeda.

After the Taliban seized Kabul, leaving Americans stranded behind enemy lines, Kamala ducked questions and left the country. When a reporter tried to ask her about the Americans left behind in Afghanistan before her flight, she giggled and replied that they couldn’t be a “higher priority”.

And then she flew off to Singapore where she toured flower gardens and had an orchid named after her while Americans were being beaten by the Taliban in the streets of Kabul.

Kamala also took time out to meet with Halimah Yacob, Singapore’s first female Muslim president, selected in a rigged election with no opposing candidates in which only Malaysians could compete, and to show off another outfit by leftist Singaporean fashion designer Prabal Gurung who had falsely claimed that, “anti-blackness that is woven into the DNA of America”.

After having done her part to disgrace America in Singapore, Kamala tried to duck questions about what was happening to the Americans she had left behind as hostages in Afghanistan.

Despite Singapore penning up reporters in a separate room and forcing them to ask questions remotely, she still had to face questions about what was happening in Afghanistan. Kamala tried to avoid responsibility, arguing that, “there’s going to be plenty of time to analyze what has happened” and assured the press that “we are singularly focused on evacuating American citizens, Afghans who worked with us.” By the time the evacuation had concluded, many of the Americans and the vast majority of the Afghans had been left behind under Taliban rule.

While Kamala Harris was happy to take credit for Biden’s Afghanistan policy and to put her stamp of approval on it when it seemed like a good idea, she’s been running from it ever since. Whether it’s dodging reporters or flying off to Asia, she doesn’t want to be the last person in the room anymore. But it’s much too late for Kamala to pretend that she had nothing to do with it.

As the “last person in the room”, Kamala Harris had made a point of taking a prominent seat at nearly every intelligence and security briefing. And though she only holds down the second spot, she is in some ways more culpable for the disastrous moves in Afghanistan than Biden.

Kamala Harris visited Afghanistan more recently than Biden as part of a Senate Intelligence Committee oversight trip. As a Committee member during the years that Biden was out of office, she had access to classified information that he did not. While there were plenty of recent reports warning of an imminent collapse in Afghanistan, she would have been seeing reports for four years before Biden and had a clearer picture of recent developments in the country.

And, unlike Biden, she can’t plead dementia.

Nor was Kamala just deferring to her boss. During her visit to Afghanistan in 2018 and during her failed presidential primary campaign, she laid out essentially the same positions as Biden.

In 2019, Kamala Harris went on MSNBC’s leftist Rachel Maddow gabfest to attack President Trump’s withdrawal plan as irresponsible and fumed that a commander in chief has to “understand the seriousness and the severity of one`s decisions”.

There’s no apparent sign that Kamala understands the seriousness and severity of turning the Taliban into the heaviest armed Sunni Jihadist group on the planet or of betraying our allies.

“I was in Afghanistan days before he made that decision, and, Rachel, when I was there, I spoke with generals and I spoke with troops. There was an active conversation happening around negotiating what should be the future of Afghanistan. And then out of nowhere, the president makes his decision. It was irresponsible,” she whined on MSNBC.

Did any of the troops tell her to cut and run while leaving thousands of Americans behind?

Every promise that Kamala made, that the evacuations of Americans would be the “highest priority”, that she would bring American soldiers home “responsibly”, that she would “ensure that the country is on a path to stability, that we protect the gains that have been made for Afghan women and others, and that it never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists” were broken.

Even as the Taliban were forcing young girls to marry their terrorists, Kamala was telling reporters in Vietnam not to worry because she had spent her “entire career on the protection of women and children.”

Considering she had actually spent her career covering for the likes of Willie Brown, Bob “Filthy” Filner who got the Jeffrey Epstein special from her office, along with “one of her closest professional confidantes” who was accused of sexually harassing his assistant, not to mention Joe Biden, that’s almost as implausible as her claim that Afghanistan was her highest priority even while being named godmother to an orchid in Singapore.

When the Biden-Harris administration abandoned Americans in Afghanistan, the stranded included 8 San Diego families and 21 local students. A local school district went to work to help them. Kamala Harris ignored her former constituents as she had all the others trapped there.

In September, after Biden fled and left Americans behind, and Kamala claimed that she could be trusted because she had built her “entire career on the protection of women and children”,  a school liaison warned that, “we still have thousands of families, invisible families, who are still stuck in Afghanistan, who are U.S. passport holders, green card holders, SIV holders.”

The one politician working on the issue was a Republican congressman who declared, “The Biden administration left them behind and we didn’t rest until they were on their way home.”

A father who made it out with 5 kids thanked the Marines. He made no mention of Kamala.

Kamala Harris had spent her career betraying the people she claimed to be helping. Afghanistan is just one more chapter in her disgraceful biography. It deserves to be the last.

Biden claimed that Kamala Harris is “the last voice in the room and never fails to speak the truth.” What “truth” did Kamala speak when Biden made a series of disastrous decisions that cost the lives of American military personnel and the freedom of American civilians?

When Biden allowed the Taliban to take Kabul and screen those Americans and Afghans who were allowed to reach the airport through their checkpoints, what did Kamala have to offer?

When the Haqqani Network, allies of Al Qaeda, controlled Kabul, the checkpoints, and access to the airport for fleeing Americans, did Kamala utter a single word of protest to Joe Biden?

She was “comfortable” with it. And she still is.

Biden claimed that this would be the Biden-Harris administration. Kamala would be his partner in all things, handling calls with foreign leaders, leading diplomatic missions, and tackling crises.

As his partner, she deserves an equal share of the responsibility and the accountability.

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states.

Kamala Harris violated the trust and duty of her office by engaging in behavior whose consequences were foreseeable to a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the second highest elected official in the country with access to classified intelligence. The collapse of the Afghan government, the Taliban takeover of the country, and the fall of Kabul were not unexpected developments, but ones that plenty of people, the vast majority of whom had no access to intelligence briefings, predicted based on past and current events.

Kamala Harris attacked President Trump’s Afghanistan plan as irresponsible and claimed that she had a better plan. The entire world has seen the Biden-Harris withdrawal plan in action.

And is horrified by it.

America’s enemies are gloating and our allies are fearfully backing away. China is threatening Taiwan, Iran is accelerating its nuclear program, and Americans are being taken hostage in Haiti and Venezuela. America is in danger and the risk of war is growing because of Kamala.

A military setback is not itself an impeachable offense, but knowingly abandoning Americans and advanced military equipment to the Taliban are. When the Biden-Harris administration chose to put a military pullout ahead of a civilian one for political reasons, they turned a military retreat into the nation’s worst hostage crisis, destroyed our credibility, and disgraced our nation.

“There is going to be plenty of time to analyze what has happened and what has taken place in the context of the withdrawal from Afghanistan,” Kamala told reporters in Singapore.

The time is long since past. And the best way to begin is with an impeachment inquiry.

The Biden-Harris administration has made it clear that it will not cooperate with an ordinary investigation. The media, which was briefly critical when its reporters were under fire, has gone back to carrying the corrupt administration’s water. Impeachment hearings will remind the public of what happened and an inquiry will help make it clear who in the administration knew what.

And when they knew it.

Dead American military personnel and American civilians trapped behind enemy lines deserve the truth. And they deserve an accountability that begins with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Impeachment won’t bring back the dead, but it will ensure that Kamala and her boss don’t get any more Americans killed.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jill Biden SICK OF IT, Looks to Oust Kamala White House Crumbling from Within

How the Biden Administration Fakes the ‘Only 100 Americans Left in Afghanistan’

Biden administration delivers ‘sharpest rebuke yet’ to Israel over settlement ‘expansion’

Iran deploys advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries in Syria to challenge Israeli jets

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What the Murder of a Five-Year-Old Yazidi Girl by Muslims Tells Us

A judge in Munich has just sentenced a German woman, one Jennier Wenisch, a convert to Islam who was an ISIS bride, to ten years in prison for her part in the murder of a five-year-old Yazidi girl, whom she and her husband had enslaved. An earlier Jihad Watch report on this atrocity is here, and a detailed report here: “German ISIS bride who chained up five-year-old Yazidi slave girl in the sun and let her die of thirst as punishment for wetting the bed is jailed ten years for ‘war crime,’” by David Averre, MailOnline, October 25, 2021:

A German ISIS bride was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a Munich court today over the war crime of letting a five-year-old Yazidi ‘slave’ girl die of thirst in the sun.

Jennifer Wenisch, 30, from Lohne in Lower Saxony, was found guilty of ‘two crimes against humanity in the form of enslavement’, as well as aiding and abetting the girl’s killing and being a member of a terrorist organisation.

Wenisch converted to Islam in 2013 and made her way to Iraq to join the Islamic State, where she and her husband ‘purchased’ a Yazidi woman and child as household slaves according to the Court.

‘After the girl fell ill and wet her mattress, the husband of the accused chained her up outside as punishment and let the child die an agonising death of thirst in the scorching heat,’ prosecutors said during the trial.

‘The accused allowed her husband to do so and did nothing to save the girl.’…

Wenisch’s husband, Taha al-Jumailly, is also facing trial in separate proceedings in Frankfurt, where the verdict is due in late November.

When asked during the trial about her failure to save the girl, Wenisch said she was ‘afraid’ that her husband would ‘push her or lock her up’.

Identified only by her first name Nora, the Yazidi girl’s mother has repeatedly testified in both Munich and Frankfurt about the torment allegedly visited on her child.

The defence had claimed the mother’s testimony is untrustworthy and said there was no proof that the girl, who was taken to hospital after the incident, actually died.

The hospital tried unsuccessfully to revive her. Isn’t her lifeless body, that had been found chained – to what? — outside, enough proof that she had died?

Wenisch’s lawyers had called for her to receive just a two-year suspended sentence for supporting a terrorist organisation.

Wenisch herself claimed she was being ‘made an example of for everything that has happened under ISIS’ at the close of the trial, according to the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, and appeared to show remorse for the crimes for which she was found guilty….

Full of self-pity, this monstrous woman claimed she was being punished for “everything that has happened under ISIS.” Nonsense. She is being punished for exactly one thing: her role in the murder of a five-year-old girl. We are told that Wenisch “appeared” to show remorse. That’s easy to feign. But In prison isn’t it likely that Wenisch, who apparently has not turned her back on ISIS or on Islam, will continue to proselytize among the inmates?

Prominent London-based human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, who has been involved in a campaign for IS crimes against the Yazidi to be recognised as a ‘genocide’, was part of the team representing the Yazidi girl’s mother….

What do this atrocity, and Wenisch’s punishment, tell us?

First, it reminds us that in Islam it is deemed licit to hold slaves, like the little Yazidi girl whom the couple had enslaved (it’s hard to imagine what tasks she was given). Muhammad himself bought, sold, and owned slaves, which has made the practice permissible for Muslims ever since, for Muhammad was the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) and Model of Conduct (uswa hasana).

Second, it reminds us that Muslims are taught in the Qur’an that while they are the “best of peoples” (3:110), Infidels are the “most vile of created beings.” (98:6) Not all Muslims accept, much less act on, that view. But fanatical Muslims such as Wenisch’s husband, Taha al-Jumailly, felt he could treat this helpless little girl, a non-Muslim, with as much cruelty as he wished. She was, after all, an Infidel, and therefore he could do anything he wanted to do with her. And his wife was too afraid to protest, or try to rescue her.

Third, Jennifer Wenisch saw her husband fasten the little girl to a chain, attaching her to something – a tree, a pole – so that she could not move about, or seek shade, but was made to endure without relief the scorching heat of the sun. She died of thirst. If Jennifer Wenisch had any qualms about this, she did not dare to express them to her husband, because she knew that he could punish her; the Qur’an gives Muslim husbands the right to “beat” their wives if they even suspect them of being disobedient (4:34); what might she expect from a man as demonstrably cruel as Taha al-Jumailly?

Fourth, the girl’s mother will obtain a kind of justice for her martyred daughter, because Germany is one of several dozen countries with laws that include aspects of universal jurisdiction, ”a legal principle that some crimes are so grave — such as genocide and war crimes — that impunity and normal territorial restraints on prosecutions should not apply.” The crime in this case – the murder of the little girl — was committed in Iraq, but was understood, properly, as part of the Islamic State’s genocidal treatment of the Yazidi people. Hence German courts believed they could invoke “universal jurisdiction” and try her murderers.

Fifth, the justice in this case might not have been obtained, had the murdered little girl’s mother not had as her lawyer Amal Clooney, who is now, for obvious reasons, the most famous human rights lawyer in the world. That led to media attention that insured the case would not disappear from view, but would be decided by German judges. Who knows how many other Yazidis have been tormented and murdered, but their families never obtained justice because they lacked the services of someone like Amal Clooney?

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLS:

Biden Admin on Afghan Evacuations: ‘Err on the Side of Excess’

Israel or Biden Admin: Who’s Telling the Truth About Terror-Linked Groups Crackdown?

Canada: Muslim convicted of plotting jihad massacres at multiple locations whines about computer restrictions

EDITORS NOT: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Afghan refugees: Do we know what we’re getting into?

Today at the Young America’s Foundation conference at the Reagan Ranch Center.

RELATED VIDEO: The Afghan Refugee Crisis

RELATED ARTICLES:

Immigration provision in reconciliation bill will ‘set back’ American workers 

Ilhan Omar Wants State Department to Fight ‘Islamophobia’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

TAKE ACTION To Impeach Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin – Sign The Petition

Instead of fighting the enemy, he was fighting Americans.


Sign the Freedom Center’s petition to Remove Secretary Austin NOW! –  CLICK HERE.


Americans are dead and our credibility is in ruins. Meanwhile the man at the top of the military chain of command is blaming everyone else while using the dead for political cover.

When Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he suggested that any criticism of his disaster in Afghanistan would impugn the heroism of American soldiers who fought and died in the war. It was a shameless performance in which Austin blamed everyone else while using the soldiers he sacrificed as human shields.

Indian intelligence sources revealed that the ISIS-K suicide bomber who murdered 13 American military personnel at the Kabul airport had been released from Bagram Air Base by the Taliban.

The decision to pull out of Bagram had been reached at a secret meeting in the Pentagon’s “extreme basement” attended by Austin, Gen. Milley, and Secretary of State Blinken.

Any final decision would have had to be signed off by Biden and by Austin.

It’s understandable that Austin keeps coming up with excuses for the disaster that led to the death of more American personnel in one day than in the last two years of war in Afghanistan.

Austin is at the top of the military chain of command and answers only to the man in the Oval Office. No one is more responsible for the military disaster in Afghanistan than Austin except for the man who gave him his orders. But it was Austin who promised Senate members that if he were confirmed, he would speak his mind and stand up to Joe Biden.

“I certainly wouldn’t be here if I believed the last four years of my life left me too familiar with current operations to change course when needed, too close to scrutinize people with whom I once served, or too afraid to speak my mind to you or to the President,” Austin had assured the Senate Armed Service Committee during his confirmation hearing.

It was one of the many broken promises that Austin left in his wake during his brief tenure. The Secretary of Defense had promised to end the war in Afghanistan “on terms favorable to the United States”, had assured that, “Afghan security forces have the capability and capacity to project security and stability in Afghanistan in 2021 and beyond”, and that he would work to “ensure that the U.S. military and our Afghan partners have the capacity and capability necessary to protect U.S. personnel, our allies and partners, and our interests.”

Austin vowed to represent national interests, to be independent and flexible, and to keep American soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and in the United States safe.

As the Afghanistan disaster unfolded, Austin showed off all of his abandoned promises.

He explained that he could not rescue the Americans trapped behind enemy lines. “I don’t have the capability to go out and extend operations currently into Kabul.” Austin acknowledged that Americans were being assaulted by the Taliban. “We’re also aware that some people, including Americans, have been harassed and even beaten by the Taliban.” he admitted, but all he had to offer was a protest that he had registered with “the designated Taliban leader.”

In eight months under Austin’s leadership, U.S. military forces had gone from a dominant force to being unable to stop the Taliban from beating Americans in the streets of Kabul.

This disgraceful betrayal was implemented by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

No single military figure had done as much to radicalize the military, undermine military readiness, shatter international alliances, and destroy America’s credibility abroad.

Austin’s opening statement at his confirmation hearing made no mention of Afghanistan or the Taliban, or even Al Qaeda, ISIS, and terrorism. Instead he vowed to fight the “enemies” that “lie within our own ranks” and “rid our ranks of racists and extremists” by which he meant anyone who wasn’t on board with critical race theory and the rest of his radical leftist agenda.

In February, Austin held his first press conference at which he discussed the Biden administration’s illegal military occupation of Washington D.C. He also mentioned that, “I told our allies that no matter what the outcome of our review, the United States will not undertake a hasty or disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

NATO allies were promised that, “There will be no surprises. We will consult each other, consult together and decide together and act together.” As the British and other NATO allies have made clear, there was no consultation and there were no joint decisions. Instead Biden and Austin made disastrous unilateral moves while leaving the nations that had aided us holding the bag.

But Austin was spending far more time fighting conservatives in the military than fighting the enemy. While white personnel were being told that they were oppressors, and minority personnel were encouraged to believe that they were victims of white racism, the planning for a full evacuation from Afghanistan was being pushed off as it was an unimportant matter.

Defense Secretary Austin kept sloganeering about “a responsible and sustainable end to this war” and promised, “we want to do this methodically and deliberately”. Instead, he abandoned Bagram Air Base, cutting off the only safe evacuation route, and pulled all but 600 military personnel out, only to rush troops back at the last minute for a “hasty” and “disorderly withdrawal”.

Austin had also promised that U.S. military weapons wouldn’t fall into the hands of the Taliban.

“We’re going to responsibly retrograde all of our capabilities,” Austin had falsely promised.  “We’re going to account for all the people and resources that are working with us.”

Instead, Austin left the Taliban as the best armed Sunni Jihadist group on the planet.

While Austin was vowing to fight all the “racists and extremists” in the military, he was ignoring a report to the Pentagon’s Inspector General which warned that “Al Qaeda is gaining strength in Afghanistan while continuing to operate with the Taliban under the Taliban’s protection” and that “Al Qaeda capitalizes on its relationship with the Taliban through its network of mentors and advisers who are embedded with the Taliban, providing advice, guidance, and financial support.”

Al Qaeda functioned in relation to the Taliban the way that America did to the Afghan government as an embedded supportive force providing money and strategic insights. The Taliban had not only failed to turn on Al Qaeda, but the terrorist group that had attacked America on September 11 was playing the role of the wizards behind the Taliban curtain.

In response to Senate questions, Austin wrote that the “Taliban have agreed to take concrete steps to ensure that al Qaeda never again is able to use Afghanistan’s soil to threaten the security of the United States or our allies. If confirmed, I will review the Taliban’s progress toward implementing their commitments with regard to al Qaeda.”

The Taliban implemented their commitments to Al Qaeda, not to Austin. The Haqqani Network, longtime Al Qaeda allies, control Kabul and the terrorist group freely operates in Afghanistan.

“We are committed to a responsible and sustainable end to this war while preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups that threaten the interest of the United States and our allies,” Austin had said. But the report to the Pentagon IG had already made it clear that Taliban control over Afghanistan would mean the return of Al Qaeda.

What happened wasn’t a surprise, it was inevitable.

“The whole community is kind of watching to see what happens and whether or not al Qaeda has the ability to regenerate in Afghanistan,” Austin told reporters during his post-defeat tour.

As usual, he was late to the party.

“We put the Taliban on notice that we expect them to not allow that to happen,” he said, referring to Al Qaeda using Afghanistan to launch attacks against the United States. The “notice” will be as effective as the one about the Taliban beating Americans at checkpoints.

But Austin had made it his priority to use the military against fellow Americans, whether in Washington D.C. or within the ranks of the military, while betraying Americans to the Taliban.

“This all occurred in a span of about 11 days. Nobody predicted that, you know, the government would fall in 11 days,” Austin whined during an ABC News interview.

Every Biden administration official had latched on the same dishonest talking point.

As the Washington Post noted, “On Sept. 27, 1996, Taliban forces captured Kabul overnight, flooding in from all directions after a 15-day sweep of the country.” There were plenty of intelligence estimates warning of a rapid Taliban takeover. But Austin didn’t have to wait until there were only 11 days left. What was he doing since Kamala Harris swore him in on Jan 25?

Where were all those “responsible” and “methodical” plans he had been promising all along?

Instead of planning how to keep Americans safe, Austin spent those months waging war on Americans with a militarization of Washington D.C. and with a purge of the military. And when 13 American military personnel died because of his actions at the Kabul airport, the dead heroes proved to be men and women, white and Latino, who represented the spectrum that Austin was trying to divide with the big lies of critical race theory and a hunt for “extremists”.

The real extremists were Austin, Milley, and Biden.

Like most leftists, Secretary of Defense Austin could not take the idea of an external enemy seriously. Radicals striving to take power focus all their efforts on fighting internal enemies. And while Austin fought other Americans, Al Qaeda and the Taliban claimed Afghanistan.

Along with untold billions in military equipment, including Black Hawk helicopters, drones, armored vehicles, and a treasure trove of assault rifles and heavy weaponry.

On his post-defeat tour, Austin has claimed that the disaster, “will be studied in the days and months ahead”, and admitted that, “No operation is ever perfect, there are lessons to be learned.” What those lessons are, he hasn’t bothered sharing with the rest of the country.

Austin may not be especially bright, but he is a career military man who reached the pinnacle of his profession. He knew that the Afghanistan withdrawal would be a disaster and that is why he reportedly advised Biden to conduct it in stages, instead of in one fell swoop. Biden ignored his advice and Austin shrugged because he didn’t care about Afghanistan, he cared about “racism”.

The real lesson here is on the dangers of putting radicals with racial grudges in charge of the United States military. The Afghanistan rout was not an unexpected surprise, it was the cumulative effect of radicalism, incompetence, and apathy by a politicized and disloyal brass.

While Austin was fighting enemies at home, he enabled enemies abroad. He made fellow American military personnel into his enemies and they died at the hands of true enemies.

The betrayal in Afghanistan began with a betrayal at home.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar Wants State Department to Fight ‘Islamophobia’

UC Berkeley study claims that ‘Islamophobia undermines and weakens women’s rights’

UK: Three children from jailed Islamic State families handed to families in Britain to start new life

India: 3200 Islamic State sleeper cells with 32000 jihadis active in Kerala, with Pakistani support

Afghanistan: Shia community fearful amid deadly mosque attacks and ongoing persecution from Sunnis

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.