Friday, January 9, 2015

War Risk Rises in Middle East - Yaakov Lappin



by Yaakov Lappin


Iran's weapons industries are at the service of Hezbollah, while Hezbollah tries to acquire precision-guided rockets and missiles for future attacks on strategic Israeli sites.
The Middle East is increasingly becoming an area where it is harder for actors to exercise control over their situations or to control events.

Despite Israel's deterrence, the risk of an inadvertent clash between Israel and Hezbollah is rising.

The new year holds many new dangers and few opportunities, as Israel's two near enemies, Hezbollah in Lebanon on its northern front and Hamas in Gaza on its west, continue their large-scale armament programs, and prepare for a future day when they will fight another war with Israel.

Although neither Hezbollah nor Hamas has an interest in sparking a war with Israel any time soon -- when they stand to suffer widespread, lasting, and crippling damage from any such clash -- both are nevertheless preparing in earnest.

Hezbollah, armed with over 100,000 rockets and missiles, can rain down an unprecedented number projectiles on Israel. In addition, Hamas and Hezbollah are planning cross-border raids by sending highly trained murder squads, in order to take their fight into Israeli territory, as Hamas began doing this past summer through the tunnels it built for that purpose in Gaza.

With the region in chaos, and each side arming and training itself for when hostilities break out, the risk of a localized incident inadvertently igniting a wider clash -- or simply an error in judgment -- appears to have grown significantly.

Hezbollah has shown signs in recent months that it is prepared openly to retaliate in response to any events it interprets as Israeli transgressions against its main base of operations in Lebanon.

Israel has warned Hezbollah and Iran on multiple occasions to refrain from smuggling advanced weapons into Lebanon. Israel has also, according to foreign reports, taken action several times to intercept attempted weapons smuggling.

Iran's weapons industries are at the service of Hezbollah, mass-producing projectiles for it, while Hezbollah continues trying to acquire precision-guided rockets and missiles for future attacks on strategic Israeli sites.

Even though Hezbollah, acting under Iranian orders, is neck deep in its involvement in the Syrian civil war, and is stretched across Syria and Lebanon, its pace of preparations for war with Israel continues unaffected. The Syrian conflict has even given it some new tools, which it can deploy against Israel, such as improved ability to coordinate ground maneuvers. This build-up of offensive abilities represents the most serious challenge to Israel's security in the immediate vicinity.

Hezbollah combat units, battle-hardened from fighting in the Syrian civil war, now have improved capabilities to deploy against Israel.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to try to carry out deadly terror attacks on Israelis overseas.

This does not mean that the Lebanese Shi'ite terror organization is seeking an all-out war at this moment -- in fact, the opposite seems true.

Its actions seem designed to keep a confrontation with Israel on a low flame for the time being, while it focuses on Syria. Despite its extremist ideology, Hezbollah would not gain much from prompting Israel to unleash waves of devastating firepower on its assets across Lebanon.

Nonetheless, any "error" or misjudgment by Hezbollah could end up triggering a sequence of events that could well lead to war. Should that happen, there are no guarantees that the conflict would remain limited to Lebanon and Israel. Other arenas, such as Gaza and Syria, could easily be sucked in as well.

The Middle East is increasingly becoming an area where it is harder for actors to exercise control over their situation or to control events.

Israel still remains the most powerful side in the Middle East, and as it is now preparing to deal with growing semi-state guerilla-terrorist forces on its borders, it has to ready for itself for the possibility that a conflict on one border will quickly spread to another. In the past, it was believed that such conflicts could be short-lived, but the duration of future clashes may be lengthier than many have previously believed.

As its military continues assessing the challenges across the borders, Israel remains prepared for all eventualities.


Yaakov Lappin

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5017/middle-east-war-risk

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

India, Pakistan on the Brink, Again - Tarek Fatah



by Tarek Fatah


While sanctions on North Korea grabbed headlines, few of us were aware of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan that could have far-reaching consequences for us in the West.

The crew of a Pakistani vessel suspected of carrying terrorists set the ship ablaze after being intercepted by the Indian coast guard.
During the holiday season, while North American media obsessed over North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony Corporation and dressed it up as a major international incident, a far more serious confrontation between two other nuclear powers escaped their attention.

While sanctions on North Korea grabbed headlines, few of us were aware of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan that could have far-reaching consequences for us in the West.

On New Year's Eve, as people partied around the globe, a naval 
incident was unfolding in the Arabian Sea, some 365 km off the Indian city of Porbander.

India's defence ministry would later disclose in a statement that its coast guard ships and aircraft had intercepted a "suspect" Pakistani fishing boat after Indian intelligence tracked the vessel as it left port near Karachi.

Fishing boats that cross into the other country's waters are regularly impounded by both India and Pakistan, but this boat was hundreds of miles into international waters when the Indians started giving chase.

Instead of stopping and allowing the Indian Coast Guard officials to board the boat, the Pakistani vessel tried to escape. This resulted in an hour-long chase that reportedly only ended when the four "fishermen" set their vessel on fire before blowing themselves up. The Indian Coast Guard released a video of the boat exploding in a huge ball of fire.

"I can assure you that those on the boat were not smugglers. The boat was blown up and only people who are motivated and trained could commit suicide."
Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar
India's Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar claimed the boat was carrying "suspected terrorists" who were "in touch with the Pakistan Army and the Pakistani establishment."

After the Indian Express newspaper and the opposition Congress suggested the men on the boat were smugglers, not terrorists, Parrikar asserted: "I can assure you that those on the boat were not smugglers. The boat was blown up and only people who are motivated and trained could commit suicide."

For its part, Pakistan strongly rejected Indian allegations the boat was on a terror mission, calling the charges "baseless and preposterous".

A Foreign Office spokesperson in Islamabad repeated the now familiar Pakistan refrain that, "Pakistan is opposed to terrorism in all forms and manifestation and has been the biggest victim of terrorism."

The alleged "terror boat" journey was eerily similar to one undertaken by another group of Pakistani terrorists in their 2008 attack on Mumbai.

Seen in the context of Pakistan blaming India for the recent Taliban massacre of students at an army school in Peshawar, could the boat have been part of a reprisal terror attack gone bad?

On Feb. 21 last year, the former head of India's Intelligence Bureau, who has now taken over as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's national security adviser, uttered a sentence at a speech on India-Pakistan relations that may indicate the seriousness of the current crisis. Ajit Kumar Doval told an audience at a lecture on the "Strategic Response to Terrorism" at an Indian university: "You can do one (more) Mumbai; you may lose Balochistan."

Balochistan is Pakistan's largest province where there is a guerrilla war for independence from Islamabad. It sits at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz from where much of the world's oil supplies are exported.

If Doval is right, the next war between India and Pakistan will be fought over Balochistan and may involve Islamabad authorizing the "first use" of tactical nuclear weapons.

The Porbander boat incident may very well become the Gulf of Tonkin incident that more than 50 years ago triggered the Vietnam war.


Tarek Fatah is a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a columnist at the Toronto Sun, host of a Sunday afternoon talk show on Toronto's NewsTalk1010 AM Radio, and a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author of two award-winning books: Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and The Jew is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/4960/india-pakistan-on-the-brink-again

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A Revolutionary Speech Ignored by the MSM - Raymond Ibrahim



by Raymond Ibrahim

Even after the appearance of the Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insist that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise. Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam themselves

On New Year’s Day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi -- the hero of Egypt’s 2013 anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution -- made some remarkable comments concerning the need for a “religious revolution.”  

Watch the video below or click here to read the excerpt:



Sisi made his remarks during a speech celebrating the birth of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad -- which was ironically held on January 1, 2015 (a day not acknowledged or celebrated in the Muslim world as it is based on a Christian calendar) -- and he was addressing the nation’s top Islamic authorities from among the Awqaf Ministry (religious endowments) and Al Azhar University.

Although Sisi’s words were directed to Islam’s guardians and articulators, they indirectly lead to several important lessons for Western observers. 

First, in just a few words, Sisi delivered a dose of truth and hard-hitting reality concerning the Islamic world’s relationship to the rest of the world -- a dose of reality very few Western leaders dare think let alone proclaim.  

 “It’s inconceivable,” he said, “that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.  Impossible!”  

What a refreshingly honest statement to come from not only a political leader but a Muslim political leader who has much to lose, not least his life.  Contrast his very true words with the habitual reassurances of the Western establishment that Islamic world violence is a product of anything and everything but Islam.

Even after the appearance of the Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insist that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise. Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam themselves:
That thinking [that is responsible for producing “anxiety, danger, killing and destruction” around the world] -- I am not saying “religion” but “thinking” -- that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.  It’s antagonizing the entire world.
As a Muslim, Sisi will not say that Islam, the “religion,” is responsible for “antagonizing the entire world,” but he certainly gets much closer to saying that than his Western counterparts when he says that this “thinking” is rooted in an Islamic “corpus of texts and ideas” which have become so “sacralized.”

Here in the West, Islamic terrorists are seen as mere “criminals” and their terrorism as “crimes” without any mention of any Islamic text or ideology influencing them.

The Egyptian president further invoked the classical Islamic teaching -- the “thinking” -- that divides the world into two warring halves: the Muslim world (or in Islamic/Arabic parlance, Dar al-Islam) which must forever be in a struggle with the rest of the world (or Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war”) till, in the Koran’s words, “all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39).

“Is it possible,” asked Sisi, “that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants -- that is 7 billion -- so that they themselves may live?”  

Sisi made another important point that Western leaders and media habitually lie about: after affirming that Islamic “thinking” is “antagonizing the entire world,” he said that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost -- and it is being lost by our own hands.”  

In other words, Islamic terrorism and chaos is not a product of grievance, territorial disputes, colonialism, Israel, offensive cartoons, or anything else the West comes up.  It’s a product of their “own hands.”

Again, one must appreciate how refreshing it is for a top political leader in the heart of the Islamic world to make such candid admissions that his Western counterparts dare not even think let alone speak. And bear in mind, Sisi has much to lose as opposed to Western politicians.  Calls by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists that he is an apostate are sure to grow more aggressive now.  

The critic may ask, “All well and good, but words aside, what has Sisi actually done to help bring about this “religious revolution”?  In fact, one popular journalist, Ibrahim Eissa, recently said just this on live television in Egypt:
Five months have passed since he [Sisi] became president, after his amazing showing at elections.  Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse….  But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse.  Nothing at all.
Yet it seems that Sisi has an answer for this, too: it is not his job as president of Egypt to reform the thinking of the Islamic world; rather, that role belongs to the ulema -- which is precisely why he addressed them with such candid words.  Indeed, he repeatedly stressed that it is the ulema’s job to lead this “religious revolution.”  

Thus,
“I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…. I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema -- Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.”
Meanwhile, as Sisi was making these groundbreaking if not historic statements, the Western mainstream media, true to form, ignored them and instead offered puerile and redundant headlines like:

·      “Egypt President Sisi urged to free al-Jazeera reporter” (BBC, Jan 1; to which I respond, “So Al Jazeera can continue lying and misleading the West about Sisi and Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution?”)
·       “Egyptian gays living in fear under Sisi regime” (USA Today, Jan. 2; to which I respond, “Homosexuals live in fear in all Islamic nations, regardless of Sisi.”)
·       “George Clooney’s wife Amal risks arrest in Egypt” (Fox News, to which I respond, “Who cares?  Only her innocence or guilt matter, not her husband’s fame” -- which is the only reason Fox News chose this story.) 

Whether concerning the true nature of Islam or the true nature of Sisi, this is the latest example of how unfathomably ignorant all those millions of people who exclusively follow the so-called “mainstream media” must surely be.


Raymond Ibrahim

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/a_revolutionary_speech_ignored_by_the_msm.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Appeasement Comes Back to Haunt France - Ari Lieberman



by Ari Lieberman


Today’s European Muslims have successfully accomplished what the Nazis could not accomplish in World War II. They have sown an irreversible dread into Europe and implanted a fascist-like Islamist seed that has taken firm root.


It’s time that we finally admit it. The battle for Old Europe is over. The Gates of Vienna have finally been breached. Old Europe has been experiencing a tidal wave of violence and terror in recent years correlating to and in direct proportion with the growing influence of Muslims in the western part of the continent. Yesterday’s massacre in Paris by Muslims screaming “Allahuakbar” (what else?) represents a culmination of growing Muslim power and even dominance in France. Britain, Sweden, Belgium and the rest of the sorry lot are not too far behind. Today’s European Muslims have successfully accomplished what the Nazis could not accomplish in World War II. They have sown an irreversible dread into Europe and implanted a fascist-like Islamist seed that has taken firm root.

It is ironic that France has been the recent target of most of the violence. France of all the countries of Old Europe is one of Islam’s greatest appeasers. For all its official rhetoric, France has done precious little to stem the growing tide of Jew-hatred and anti-Israelism that has gripped that country. The sign of a sick and diseased country can be measured by its treatment of its Jews and by that paradigm, France’s condition is terminal. Mass emigration of French Jewry, prompted primarily by French Islamists, is met with muted response and inaction by French officials who appear either indifferent to their plight or at a loss to devise a coherent strategy to effectively deal with the phenomena.

Since the mid-1960s, the French, motivated partly out of greed, partly out of a need to needle the United States and partly out of genuine dislike for the Mideast’s only democracy, have done everything in their power to appease tyranny rather than fight it, to prop it up rather than obliterate it.

In May 1967 France was the first Western power to unilaterally impose an arms embargo on Israel at a precarious time when Israel was facing existential threats from its Arab neighbors. From Iraq to Algeria, frenzied Arab mobs stoked by their respective venal governments burned effigies of Jews in the streets to chants of Itbach al-Yahud, “slaughter the Jews!” The world watched with feigned concern as hundreds of thousands of Arabs soldiers backed by modern Soviet T-55 tanks and Mig fighter jets converged on Israel’s borders. The French, who barely had time to shed the stench of their collaborationist Vichy past, chose to abandon and betray the Jewish State in a transparent effort to curry favor with the Muslim world. The French sold their morality for oil and a few Francs.

France’s duplicitous foreign policies when it came to appeasing two-bit Arab dictators only went from bad to worse.  They helped Saddam Hussein construct an atom bomb plant and supplied the tyrant with massive quantities of Mirage fighter jets, missiles, tanks and artillery. For those who need reminding, this is the same chap who paid lavish sums to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, who threatened to “burn half of Israel” and employed chemical weapons against his own people.

The French really know how to pick ‘em. Successive French governments have developed a penchant for coddling up to the most vile Islamic dictators and terror sponsoring states. Close relationships were forged with Hafez Assad of Syria and arch terror chieftain Yasser Arafat, a despicable murderer who was always warmly greeted by adoring and fawning French officials.

Rather than fighting and combatting Islamic terrorists, the French have a nasty habit of paying them off. They released frozen Iranian assets in exchange for cessation of Iranian-backed terror attacks against France and paid Palestinian groups protection money in an effort to spare their commercial airliners from the scourge of Palestinian skyjackings.

France’s abominable foreign policy reared its ugly head yet again when on December 30, it backed a Palestinian resolution at the UN Security Council that imposed dictates on Israel, compelling the Jewish State to withdraw to pre-1967 borders – borders which Israel’s former UN ambassador, Abba Ebban, perceptively termed “Auschwitz lines“– without addressing Israel’s security needs and territorial claims. The one-sided resolution also gave implicit recognition to the notion that millions of “Palestinian refugees” would be allowed to flood Israel, effectively ending the Jewish character of the state.

To the leaders of France, composed of Neville Chamberlin lookalikes, adopting the Palestinian narrative and coddling up to the Mideast’s Muslim dictators, is good for business and insulates France against Islamic-inspired terror attacks. Yesterday’s barbaric Muslim massacre of French political satirists, journalists and policemen in Paris proves otherwise and should compel French leaders to reevaluate their foreign and liberal domestic policies. It should also serve as a wakeup call for the rest of Old Europe to do the same but something tells me that this will not occur and there will be no course correction.

We will hear from “moderate” French Muslim leaders who will rush to exercise the Muslim principle of Taqiyya and feign concern for the victims while condemning the actions of their coreligionists. This expression of faux sympathy will be enough to placate France’s leadership and their very forgiving multicultural allies. In a few weeks or perhaps months, all will return to “normal.” French Muslim Imams will continue to spew hate directed against the “infidels” from the mosques. Violent anti-Israel, Jew-hating protests will resume in the streets of Paris and Marseilles and French officials will once again move to condemn Israel for committing some imaginary offense because it’s good for business. The Gates of Vienna have been breached.


Ari Lieberman

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/ari-lieberman/appeasement-comes-back-to-haunt-france/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Mosques on the front lines in the war against America - Carol Brown



by Carol Brown


So here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast majority of Muslims attending such mosques, and millions upon millions of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia building this dangerous empire. Put it all together and one realizes that mosques serve as jihadist recruitment and training centers.

As the Islamic invasion advances, mosques are proliferating across the United States at breakneck speed. And there appears to be no end in sight.

Since 9/11, the number of mosques in America has grown by 75%. The timing of this is no coincidence. Mosques are a symbol of Islamic supremacism. Islam attacks. Then it plants a triumphal mosque on the battlefield. And another. And another. And another.

The proliferation of mosques is also a sign of our incomprehensible response (or lack thereof) to the threat of Islam.

War has been waged against the United States and what have we done? We have welcomed the enemy with open arms. Dhimmitude has paved the way for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new mosques since the day nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Islam.

If we don’t put an end to this madness, we will ensure the continued assault against us – an assault that, ultimately, will spare no one. (Do you hear that, dhimmis? That includes you.)

Mosques pose a dual risk to Americans. First there is the nature of what is preached inside the walls of the mosque. Second is the nature of the walls themselves.

As to the first point, recent studies show that 80% of mosques preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials) and that more than 95% of Muslims attend such mosques.

But the horror doesn’t end there as one considers the issue of funding. While many Muslims claim they raise the money for mosques within the local community, there is reason to doubt this assertion in many cases. Common sense alone would cause one to question how, for example, tiny communities of Muslims could raise millions of dollars to built gigantic mosques. Common sense aside, there is evidence that shows that 80% of mosques in this country receive funds from Saudi Arabia. 

So here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast majority of Muslims attending such mosques, and millions upon millions of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia building this dangerous empire. Put it all together and one realizes that mosques serve as jihadist recruitment and training centers.

Welcome to the intersection of religion and politics. In the case of Islam, welcome to hell. Because at its core, Islam is a totalitarian ideology that demands submission. In fact, the word Islam literally means submission: as in convert, pay the jizya tax and live as a second-class citizen, or die.

Anyone who wants to argue otherwise (1) has not read the Koran, (2) does not understand the implications of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, whereby more recent violent verses supersede earlier more peaceful verses, (3) is uneducated about world history as it pertains to the rise and fall of Islam, (4) is not paying attention to the Islamic savagery unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East and elsewhere, (5) is in deep denial, and/or (6) is lying.
To fully appreciate the danger of mosques, once should also heed the words of Turkish poet Ziya Gokalp (quoted by Turkey's PM Erdogan in a 1997 speech):
The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.
These words are a chilling reminder of the role mosques serve when the time arrives for violent conquest. Although Gokalp wrote the words in 1912, the idea dates back centuries, as the Investigative Project on Terrorism reports. (If you have difficulty with the link, the same report can be found at here.)
…The prophet Muhammad's first project was to construct a mosque in his city, Medina, which served as his residence and a government headquarters of sorts. Muhammad turned the mosque into a center of preaching where…the Muslim army was prepared for wars and raids on the enemies of Islam. A commonly held view by Muslim religious scholars is that a mosque is more than just a place of worship and can have military and political uses….
The view that mosques can serve as military bases is upheld today by influential Muslim clerics who preach that mosques be used as places from which to launch jihad attacks. And, indeed, in modern times we have seen mosques used for military operations in countries around the world. Here is a snapshot of places and situations where mosques have been used as military outposts per an analysis posted at the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
  • Lebanon, Afghanistan, and areas where the Palestinian Authority has control; Hamas and Hezb’allah routinely use mosques for military operations.
  • In Iraq, US military forces frequently discovered munitions stored in mosques and had intense battles against terrorists using mosques for military purposes.
  • Mosques are also routinely used for military operations in places where Islamic terror organizations wield political and/or military might against the government. This occurs in many Arab countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria) and has also been seen in Pakistan.
  • In addition, mosques have been used for military purposes in Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and Spain.
Do you see a pattern here? It’s the same pattern we see with all aspects of the growing Caliphate as Islam spreads outward from the Middle East to engulf more and more nations. And toward that end there is the ever-present mosque – a place where jihad is preached and in some cases, a place from which the jihadist attack is launched. (If the idea of having jihad attacks launched from mosques across America does not seem plausible, in addition to pondering what I just wrote, look into the 3 stages of jihad.)

When considering this intolerable situation be aware that increasing numbers of mosques in the United States are enormous mega mosques. Some are in cities. Some are in small (once quiet) residential communities. And some are in rural areas where the size of the building/compound is drastically out of proportion to the Muslim population of the region. CBN reports:
"It does seem to be part of a larger strategy to build mosques in rural areas and create Islamic communities -- large Islamic communities -- in rural areas for some larger purpose," said Bynum, a columnist for the New English Review.
“For some larger purpose.” Hmm. And what might that purpose be?
(To read more about mega mosques, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. To watch videos on the subject, see here, here, here, here, and here, among a litany of examples.)

And if all this weren’t bad enough, we the people are battling our own government facing off against these dangerous mosques. As has become the norm with the Obama administration, the enemy Department of Justice under Eric Holder has aligned with mosques against the people. Here are just two examples from last year, among an ever-growing list:

In Bridgewater, New Jersey, a mega mosque was rejected by the city council due to a local ordinance that limits houses of worship to major roads. The DOJ and CAIR teamed up and forced the town to pay nearly eight million dollars to the mosque, which will be built elsewhere.

In St. Anthony Village, Minnesota, after the city council voted down a mosque citing zoning laws, once again the DOJ stepped in, sided with CAIR, and paved the way for the mosque to be built. A few years prior when a Christian group was denied use of the same space for the same reason, Holder did nothing. Apparently he can’t resist an opportunity to help Islam plant the flag of conquest on American soil.

Holder’s on a reckless roll and he’s only warming up. As recently reported at American Thinker:
Holder is confidently moving ahead with investigations into twenty-eight cases nationwide involving local denials of mosques, many of which have seated radical imams and officials tied to terrorist groups.
The mosque nightmare is riddled with one disastrous layer after another. In this case, Holder, Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and the ACLU form a triad of evil-doers who are using the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to force mosques on communities that reject them.

RLUIPA is about places of worship, zoning, and discrimination (real or imagined). The law gives authority to the federal government to step in and steam roll over local control regarding religious venues. Per the DOJ web site:
The land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws…. (snip)
…RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that:

(1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions;
(2)  discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination;
(3)  totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

The Department of Justice can investigate alleged RLUIPA violations and bring a lawsuit to enforce the statute….
(For an excellent overview of the law including some historical perspective, see here and here. Pamela Geller offers additional insight, here.)

Holder’s actions fall within the larger context of Obama’s persistent and intentional alignment with America’s enemies against the nation he has sworn to protect. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the mosque menace occurred in 2011 when Obama shut down all FBI monitoring of mosques in the United States. Investor’s Business Daily reports:
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string (sic) operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims….
Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.
So here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast majority of Muslims attending such mosques, millions upon millions of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia, increasing numbers of mega mosques, a history of mosques being used as military outposts, an antagonistic DOJ forcing mosques on communities, a neutered FBI, and a president who sympathizes with Islam – the greatest national security threat this nation has ever faced. 

It is that simple, that stark, and that horrifying. Regrettably, the masses (including most elected officials irrespective of political party) do not appear to grasp this shocking and dangerous truth.

The situation, as noted at the outset of this article, is incomprehensible. 

Speak out. Take action. Get involved. Join an organization to help focus your efforts. Let your elected officials know where you stand and what you expect. Educate them. Many are woefully uninformed. 

We cannot tolerate mosques spread across America preaching jihad. Treason must not be allowed to stand.

Hat tips: While I used numerous sources for my research, a special expression of gratitude is extended to Atlas Shrugs and Creeping Sharia for their meticulous work documenting and cataloguing information on issues related to Islam which helped expedite access to certain information.


Carol Brown

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/mosques_on_the_front_lines_in_the_war_against_america.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

When Will We Wake Up? - Bruce Thornton



by Bruce Thornton

Our leaders regularly scoff at the notion of a “clash of civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Secretary of State John Kerry did when he said the attacks were “part of a larger confrontation, not between civilizations, no, but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a civilized world.” The jihadists know better, and like all enemies, they get a vote. They don’t just want to brutally kill people in order to terrorize us into appeasement of their demands. They want to kill our fundamental principles.


WIPEOUT-Charlie-Hebdo-shootingThe three Muslim gunmen who killed 12 journalists in Paris targeted not just those people and their satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, but a core ideal and human right of the West––the right to free speech in the public square defined by tolerance for different opinions. That’s why the killers, after they had called out the names of their individual victims before they shot them, bragged as they made their escape that they had “killed” Charlie Hebdo. That’s why they also cried, “The Prophet has been avenged,” since the magazine had frequently spoofed Mohammed, most famously in its reprinting in 2006 of cartoons parodying Mohammed. Apparently President Obama was prescient, at least in the case of the twelve dead Parisians, when he warned in 2012, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Our leaders regularly scoff at the notion of a “clash of civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Secretary of State John Kerry did when he said the attacks were “part of a larger confrontation, not between civilizations, no, but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a civilized world.” The jihadists know better, and like all enemies, they get a vote. They don’t just want to brutally kill people in order to terrorize us into appeasement of their demands. They want to kill our fundamental principles.

And central to the political order of Western liberal democracies is freedom of speech. If the citizen masses are to have the right to participate in the political process, they must be assured that their opinions can be expressed freely without fear of retaliation. And given the great diversity of opinions, beliefs, and characters to be found among the people, this expression will often be indecorous, rancorous, and hurtful to those who disagree. But hurt feelings or wounded amour propre cannot function as a veto on public expression, which is the foundation stone of political freedom. As Sophocles said, “Free men have free tongues.”

Yet we in the West, with our “hate speech” legislation and rules that demonize “Islamophobia,” and our universities that disinvite critics of Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have given such a veto to the jihadists, and in effect validated Islamic blasphemy laws as superior to our right to free speech. After all, for Muslims who aspire to be “slaves of Allah,” free speech cannot trump traditional Islamic notions of blasphemy, a crime punishable by death according to the Koran. That’s why the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Muslim nations, has actively been trying to make blasphemy a crime in international law. That’s why it’s a Muslim majority state, NATO member Turkey, that has jailed more journalists than any other country. And that’s why anything Muslims perceive to be blasphemous––whether Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons making fun of Mohammed, or Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech––is met by riots and murder on the part not just of jihadist groups, but also ordinary Muslims.

The truth is, many Muslims see the whole Western political order as radically different from––and in their view, inferior to––that of Islam. The cultural cargo of human rights, tolerance of confessional diversity, individual autonomy and self-determination, and political freedom is incompatible with the traditional Islamic doctrine that a divinely bestowed shari’a law is the only legitimate social-political order that can create the best life in this world, and ensure the enjoyment of paradise in the next.

But this truth about Islam’s conflict with liberal democracy––a truth documented in 14 centuries of Islamic history and doctrine, and supported by majorities of Muslims worldwide–– is repeatedly denied by Western governments and intellectuals. White House spokesman Josh Earnest repeated this false knowledge, saying after the killings that Islam is “a peaceful religion and it’s terrible that we are seeing some radical extremists attempt to use some of the values to [sic] that religion and distort them greatly and inspire people to commit terrible acts of violence.” Thus the illiberal, totalitarian nature of shari’a evident in sex apartheid, honor killings, enslavement of girls, persecution and murder of religious minorities, destruction of churches and synagogues, and chronic jihadist violence is attributed to anything and everything other than the role of sacralized violence in Muslim history and theology, a patent fact dismissed as Islamophobic slander. Meanwhile, jihadist slaughter continues worldwide, with almost 800 killed and wounded just in the last week of 2014.

Yet the greater irony of the reactions to the attack is that it took place a few days after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s New Year’s Day address, reported by Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim. The mainstream media ignored this important and astonishing speech, but we need to ponder these words now, while our leaders continue to deny the Islamic roots of the latest jihadist murder:
It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.  Impossible! That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.  It’s antagonizing the entire world!
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible! I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now. All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move … because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
So the leader of the Middle East’s largest Muslim country admits the link between “the corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries” and jihadist aggression. No mention of Israel and the worldwide Zionist conspiracy, no mention of imperialism, colonialism, poverty, Islamophobia, or any of the other specious excuses Western apologists trot out to rationalize jihadist violence. No, the community of believers is “being lost by our own hands.” Nor is the solution a Palestinian state, or more “respect” for Islam, or more appeasement and concessions from self-loathing Westerners. No, Muslim theologians and scholars must start a “religious revolution,” and figure out how to reconcile their faith to modernity.

But that revolution is the business of Muslims, particularly all those “moderate” Muslim masses we keep hearing about but who are oddly silent about these serial jihadist “distortions” of their faith. This country’s responsibility is to protect our citizens and interests, and to do that we must awake from our delusional slumbers. We must stop apologizing for our alleged historical crimes, stop the self-censorship and agonizing over the hurt feelings of those trying to kill us, stop peddling “religion of peace” fairytales, and stop indulging the “profiling” angst and Islamophobia canard. Most important, we must start basing our policies on truth and common sense, and start taking action to defend our political principles like freedom, individual rights, and tolerance, rather than just talking about them.


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/bruce-thornton/when-will-we-wake-up/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Inside Account: How Anti-Israel Resolutions Were Defeated at American Historical Association - Jeffrey Herf



by Jeffrey Herf


University of Maryland Professor Jeffrey Herf helped lead the battle to defeat anti-Israel resolutions at the American Historical Association, as we wrote about on Sunday. I asked him to submit this Guest Post to recount the events and strategies, in the hope they will inform others facing similar anti-Israel tactics.
William A. Jacobson, Legal Insurrection

By now, readers of this blog probably know that, by a vote of 144 to 51 with three abstentions, members of the American Historical Association, at the Business Meeting of their annual convention in New York City on January 4, 2015, decided not to pursue two resolutions that denounced aspects of the policies of the government of Israel.

For readers of Legal Insurrection it is important to point out that the defeat of these resolutions was due to procedural issues that were also matters of substance. Details of the events are readily available in the reports by The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, Algemeiner and The Tablet .

It is the most decisive defeat that groups supporting resolutions denouncing Israel have suffered since "BDS" (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) efforts gathered steam in American universities in recent years.

This is a preliminary anatomy of its defeat.

The case for rejection on procedural grounds was straightforward. Readers of Legal Insurrection will understand that debates about procedure are also debates about substance and the rule of law.

The AHA bylaws require that members wishing to submit resolutions to be considered at the Business Meeting must do so by November lst.

An initial resolution was submitted by the Historians Against the War (HAW). HAW is a group of leftist academics that emerged in opposition to the war in Iraq and that issued a petition alleging Israel had committed "war crimes" during the war with Hamas last summer. I wrote about the emergence of a "pro-Hamas left".

An earlier anti-Israeli resolution was rejected because, according to AHA executive director James Grossman, it went "beyond matters of concern to the Association, to the profession of history, or to the academic profession."
HAW's original petition included demands for a boycott of Israel universities and implementation of the Palestinian right of return. That resolution was rejected by the AHA Council because the advocates had not gathered enough signatures and because the content of the resolution was deemed, in the words of AHA executive director James Grossman, "beyond matters of concern to the Association, to the profession of history, or to the academic profession."

On December 22, 2014, HAW submitted revised resolutions. The revisions eliminated the boycott and right of return elements but included allegations that Israel threatened an oral history archive when it bombed buildings at the Islamic University in Gaza in August 2014, and that it denied access of foreign scholars and Palestinian students to universities in Gaza and on the West Bank.

HAW then requested that the AHA Council decide whether or not to place the resolution on the agenda, even though it was submitted six weeks after the deadline, something that the Council had the right to do, despite the restrictions regarding resolutions in the organization's bylaws.

At its meeting on January 2, 2014, the Council, led by AHA President Jan Goldstein (University of Chicago), refused to do so for two reasons.

First, the December 22 resolution was submitted six weeks after the November 1 deadline, and therefore, AHA members did not have the opportunity to evaluate them.

Second, because the resolutions were filed so late, many members would not be at the business meeting because they did not know these matters would be discussed there.

A memo by Sonya Michel of the University of Maryland is an important document in this matter. Submitted on December 29th, the Michel memo was circulated to the AHA Council.

Michel urged that the AHA Council not to place the HAW resolutions on the agenda because doing so would "be violating the spirit of that bylaw" requiring a two-thirds majority, which,"was probably inserted to prevent a small group (whether a minority or slim majority) from imposing its will at the last minute on the membership at large, perhaps catching them unawares about an important issue coming up." Doing so would also not give "members adequate time and opportunity for full consideration of important issues–issues that, in this case, are by all accounts extremely controversial," she added. "Notifying members that these items are on the agenda of the meeting only at the meeting itself would deny them the kind of information they would need to decide whether or not to attend the Business Meeting in the first place."

Michel and a number of us elaborated on these points as well at the business meeting. As I pointed out on the floor of that meeting, the issue of time needed for reflection was of central concern to historians.
The rejection of the resolutions also rested on a reassertion of the principle that the AHA is a scholarly, not a political, organization.
To ask historians at a business meeting to reach conclusions about assertions of fact regarding events that supposedly occurred during the Gaza War and travel rights of scholars in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank was absurd. This was the case because it was asking historians to act on the basis political opinions rather than as a result of careful examination of evidence. No one, we argued, was able to make such assessments as a result of scholarly research. Doing so without research would be abolishing the distinction between politics and scholarship—doing what no historian should do, namely assume what remained to be proven before examination of evidence had taken place.

If HAW had achieved a two-thirds majority that was needed to "suspend the rules" and proceed to discussion of the resolutions, a number of us were prepared to challenge all of the factual assertions made in the HAW resolutions.

On December 15, 2014, I sent a memo to President Goldstein. Drawing on the reporting of Ehud Yaari, an Israeli journalist who reported on Gaza, I offered the Council and colleagues an account of events by this reliable journalist and by the government of Israel. The presentation of that evidence meant that AHA Members would, in effect, be faced with deciding between the account of events offered by Israel, a liberal democracy with a thriving political opposition and free press, and accounts offered by Hamas, a terrorist organization that suppressed all opposition, intimidated the press and media, and whose charter repeats the falsehoods of classic Jew-hatred.

If AHA members had adopted the HAW resolutions, the name of the American Historical Association would have become publicly associated with the version of events peddled by Hamas, an organization justly famous for terrorism and anti-Semitism.
Again, AHA members could not as historians render judgments about this set of events. Why would the AHA give the benefit of the doubt to Hamas rather than to Israel?

If AHA members had adopted the HAW resolutions, the name of the American Historical Association would have become publicly associated with the version of events peddled by Hamas, an organization justly famous for terrorism and anti-Semitism, and which has not permitted academic freedom to thrive under its rule.
Within the AHA, adoption of such resolution may have led to bitter divisiveness and mass resignations. A cloud of suspicion may have hung over young Jewish historians who could be suspected of guilt by association with Israel, a suspicion that could have had grave consequences on a job market that already is a political minefield.

In the broader public realm, the AHA would be associated in the public sphere with a version of events offered by Historians Against the War, a group of the radical left that had denounced Israel but had no criticisms of Hamas.

The rejection of the resolutions also rested on a reassertion of the principle that the AHA is a scholarly, not a political organization and that there is a difference between scholarship and politics. Historians as citizens have multiple other forums in which to express their views on public matters.

The vote yesterday was, for me, an assertion that many of us oppose efforts to use academic organizations to promote political purposes. It was a vote against the politicization of the AHA.

The fight to oppose the politicization of the universities is not over.

Yet thanks to the efforts of many people, especially in the past year or two, the American Historical Association will not be issuing resolutions denouncing Israel in 2015. In this effort, mid-career historians David Greenberg of Rutgers University and Sharon Musher of Stockton College in New Jersey played an especially important role.

HAW and BDS activists may learn not to repeat their tactical blunders of recent months. They are not going away. But after their defeat at the AHA, their task has become far more difficult.

In the AHA, January 4, 2015 was one case in which good arguments and careful preparation about matters of fact produced a result as welcome as it was unexpected.


Jeffrey Herf is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of History at the University of Maryland in College Park and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. His recent works include: Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (2009), and The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust (2006).
 
Source: http://www.meforum.org/4957/inside-account-how-anti-israel-resolutions-were

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.