Friday, June 30, 2017

Iran has conquered Syria - Dr. Mordechai Kedar




by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Iran has emerged the victor in the Syrian civil war. And that bodes ill for the rest of us.


The world has accepted the fact that Russian forces have been in Syria for the past two years and that Russia controls the Syrian coastline, its seaports and its two airbases. It has become used to having Hezbollah, the Shiite Lebanese militia, involved in the fighting in Syria and giving Assad much-needed support. Other Shiite militias, commanded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, are reported to have arrived from Iraq and Afghanistan. These forces sometimes endure losses on Syrian land, leaving the impression that Iran simply sent some Shiite gangs to fight Sunni gangs on Syrian soil. 

The real situation is totally different, because the Iranian forces in Syria are not gangs anymore, nor are they militias. They are an army by every existing definition of one. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are charged with building up Iranian forces in Syria, and they are a regular Iranian armed force, not a militia and certainly not a gang. An army. They have infantry, commando, tank, artillery, air force, intelligence and logistics units. This Iranian army's presence has slowly evolved on Syrian soil over the last four years and it has done so under the radar of world media.

The largest military offensive in Syria in which Iran's army took part was freeing the northern city of Aleppo from Islamic State in 2016. Russia and Iran cooperated in the operation, with Russia bombing from the air and Iranian forces, along with Hezbollah and other Shiite militias, advancing on the ground and handing over control of conquered areas to Assad's army.

Iran has been expanding the area controlled by its forces since early 2017, encroaching upon the desert regions of central and southern Syria which were, until several months ago,  in the hands of the Sunni Islamic State (Daesh), the organization now fighting for its survival in three places: Mosul in Iraq, its capital city Raqqa in Syria and Dir A-Zur in eastern Syria. Once Mosul falls,into the hands of the Iranian Army, any day now, the other two cities will follow suit.

Iran's regular armed forces took advantage of the power vacuum created by Islamic State's retreat to take over Syria's central and eastern sparsely poulated desert regions. I estimate that Iran controls over 60% of Syria today, either directly - through its Revolutionary Guards - or indirectly, through Hezbollah and Shiite militias. 

Iran's armed forces have several important bases in Syria that allow them complete freedom of movement. Most important of those is the Tadmor airfield in the center of the country, allowing Iran to fly in any military equipment it wishes to bring to Syria, mainly rockets and mortars but also other weapons. Israel is extremely concerned about this development and in March of this year attacked targets in the Tadmor region. The foreign press reported that the raid's objective was an Iranian rocket storage facility.

The entire story shows a basic change in the way Iran is running its affairs. Until recently, Iran used commercial flights to camouflage its arms transports, landing in the Damascus international airport, whille foreign press reports claimed that Israel repeatedly bombed storage facilities in the airport's environs. Iran concluded that Israeli intelligence had enlisted Syrian citizens who work or live in proximity to the airport in order to obtain information in real time. Damascus is not far from Israel, allowing the IDF to operate effectively against objectives near the Syrian capital.

In contrast, the Tadmor airfield is hundreds of kilometers from Israel.The area has few residents, making it harder for Israel to enlist people to pass on information. Israel, however, did bomb Tadmor, possibly having found another source of information. The war of the minds is being waged all the time, even though the public may be blissfully unaware of it.

Reports have claimed that Iran is now using another airport, Alsin, in the Altanef region of southern Syria, near the three-country Syria-Iraq-Jordan border. There is a border crossing between Iraq and Syria nearby, control over which allows the Iranians to freely transport anything at all to Syria. Iranian activity along the Iraq-Syria border is meant to create a continguous land passage from Iran to Syria via Iraq, resulting in Iran being able to move its forces undisturbed all the way to Lebanon, already under Hezbollah's control to all intents and purposes. Hezbollah is the Lebanese arm of the Iranian octopus, so that Iran is turning into a regional power whose forces control an enormous area, ranging from central Asia to the Mediterranean Sea.

In this context, it is important to note that all this is happening under the watchful eys of two global powers, Russia and the United States, each concerned with its own interests. The Russian interest is clear: Russia wants to strenghthen Assad and destroy all the Sunni organizations fighting him with Saudi funding and guidance, in addition to other Sunni Arab countries including Turkey. Putin taught Erdogan a lesson and he is now more fearful of the Syrian Kurds than he is an enemy of Assad and his Iranian allies, making Erdogan an important link in the Russo-Iranian coalition supporting Assad.

The US observed the growing strength of Iran in Syria over the past four years without initiating any serious attempt to stop it, unless one counts the recent downing of two drones, basically a light tap on Iran's spreading wings. Up until January 2017 the US gave silent assent to Iran's moves, because Obama wanted to empower Iran at the expense of the Saudis. He might have considered it preferable to give the Shiite Arabs and Iranians control of the "Masrek", the name for the regions to the east of Israel, while the area from Egypt westward, known as the "Maghreb," would be under Sunni control.

Now that Trump is in the White House, the main goal of American activity in Syria is the elimination of Islamic State, aka Daesh. The US is busy creating "moderate rebel" forces and an alliance ith the Kurds who, helped by US air power, are charged with getting rid of Caliph Abu Bakr al Bagdadi and the state he established. The reason the US is concentrating on Daesh is the American fear, shared by Europe, that the terror-state model of Islamic State might seem like a successful one in Muslim eyes. That could lead to Islamic State clones in other parts of the world, including Europe, with the local Islamist public providing a support base.

Trump did not see Iran's growing power in Syria as a pressing issue. For example, the US did not initiate a meeting of the UN Security Council on the subject, even though the Security Council itself prohibited Iran from transferring weaponry out of its borders.  It's quite possible that there are those in the US government who see the Iranian takeover of the Syrian desert as a positive development, preventing a vacuum that might lead to a problematic group, such as Islamic State, taking over instead.

There might even be an understanding between Trump and the  Russians that allows Iran to take over central and eastern Syria in which Russia does not have any interest, keeping these regions from becoming a place of refuge for Daesh fighters. America learned about the problem from the Afghanistan debacle when after toppling the Taliban government in 2001, most of the territory was left  unprotected, allowing the Taliban to return to its hold over most of the country today. 

The coalition of Shiite forces that invaded Syria (Iranians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Afghans) are carrying out ethnic cleansing against Sunni Syrian citizens, and in parts of the country have ejected Sunni residents in order to preempt their homes and villages for Shiite migrants from Syria, Iraq and Afganistan.

This is how, maneuvering between Obama government's purposeful intentions and Trump's choice of objectives, Iran managed to become the clear victor in the Syrian war. No one in the world will succeed in removing the Iranian army from Syria, and we, in israel, Europe and the  US, will have to get used to the fact that Iran now includes large swathes of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Hezbollah in Lebanon is now connected to Iran by land, and that is the reason Hassan Nasrallah feels such confidence vis a vis Israel, and why Israel hesitates to build a concrete wall in its own territory to protect Israelis from Hezbollah snipers.

Two years ago, when Syria was in the midst of falling apart, there were Israelis who claimed that Israel's security situation had improved now that Syria was a threat no more and Hezbollah was stuck in the Syrian quagmire. Today it looks very different. Instead of Syria, we have Iran as our immediate neighbor. Hezbollah is no more an isolated terror group in Lebanon but an important arm of the Iranian entity, parked only a short distance from Israel's border.

Worst of all is the fact that Israel's media, which reports from time to time on Iranian forces in Syria, does not show the larger, more threatening picture, the one that has developed from the Iranian line that connects the dots on the map of what was once Syria.

Iran has emerged the great, ultimate victor of the civil war in Syria. The sooner we and the rest of the world realize this, the better off we and the rest of the world will be.

Written for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky


Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20689

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Urban America's Underclass: More Money Won't Solve the Problems - Larry Elder




by Larry Elder


There's only one "program" that will make a difference.




PBS NewsHour aired a story last year about Milwaukee, saying many residents call the city "the worst place to be a black man in America." It talked about last year's riots in the city after a cop shot a black man. One black Milwaukee resident explained that this is "what happens when you inflict poverty" on poor black residents. "Inflict poverty"?

In the 50 years following President Lyndon Johnson's launch of the "war on poverty" in 1964, government spent over $22 trillion on welfare and various anti-poverty programs. The problem in our nation's inner cities is not a lack of money — it is a moral and spiritual problem largely created by our welfare state. The welfare system encourages women to marry the government and allows men to abandon their financial and moral responsibilities. The problem is fatherlessness.

In a documentary called "Resurrection," rapper Tupac Shakur, who said, "I never knew where my father was or who my father was for sure," actually admitted: "I know for a fact that had I had a father, I'd have some discipline. I'd have more confidence. Your mother cannot calm you down the way a man can. Your mother can't reassure you the way a man can. My mother couldn't show me where my manhood was. You need a man to teach you how to be a man."

In 1995, President Bill Clinton, who pledged to end "welfare as we know it," gave a speech described by a Los Angeles Times writer as "the most sweeping analysis of racial issues of his presidency." On the day of the "March on Washington," Clinton said black men must take more responsibility for their behavior: "Today's march is ... also about black men taking renewed responsibility for themselves, their families and their communities. It's about saying no to crime and drugs and violence. It's about standing up for atonement and reconciliation. It's about insisting that others do the same and offering to help them. It's about the frank admission that unless black men shoulder their load, no one else can help them or their brothers, their sisters and their children escape the hard, bleak lives that too many of them still face. ... It's not racist for whites to assert that the culture of welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock pregnancy and absent fatherhood cannot be broken by social programs, unless there is first more personal responsibility."

In my book, "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America," I wrote about a wealthy, idealistic Philadelphia philanthropist. Committed, concerned and worried about the future of urban — primarily black — kids, he "adopted" 112 inner-city sixth-graders, most of whom were products of broken homes. He promised these students that if they met minimal requirements, including graduating from high school and not getting pregnant or impregnating somebody — he'd pay for all their education, including college tuition.

He provided tutors, workshops, after-school programs and summer programs, as well as counselors to be available when trouble arose, whether personal or otherwise.

Thirteen years later, the Philadelphia Inquirer followed up on the 112 kids and analyzed the results. The percentage of kids going to college was no greater than percentage of kids from similar backgrounds without prepaid educations. The money was wasted.

Forty-five never made it through high school. Of these, 35 dropped out, one died while in school, four died after dropping out, four were working on a GED and one graduated from trade school.

Of the high school graduates, 13 were four-year college graduates, 11 were enrolled in four-year college, five were enrolled in two-year college, 12 had dropped out of two- and four-year colleges, seven graduated trade school, eight were enrolled in trade school, six dropped out of trade school and five got no further education.

Of the 67 boys, 19 grew into adult felons. Among the 45 girls, they had 63 children, and more than half had babies before age 18.

What do we make of this? The answer is simple: It's not about money. It's about values. It's about discipline and application. It's about character — about working hard when you don't want to. And these values are instilled in the home.

The first step is the truth.

As long as blacks feel and act oppressed, as if they are under siege and behind enemy lines, little will change. The formula is simple, but it requires effort: hard work wins; you get out of life what you put into it; you cannot control the outcome, but you are 100 percent in control of the effort. Go to school, study, work hard, arrive early, stay late, pay attention to detail and be honest. That is the best "anti-poverty program" ever conceived.

Larry Elder

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267136/urban-americas-underclass-more-money-wont-solve-larry-elder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

In Syria, Trump's Red Line May Be Holding - Joseph Klein




by Joseph Klein


Has the Assad regime stepped back from the chemical weapons precipice?




Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis claimed Wednesday that the Syrian regime has drawn back from plans to conduct another chemical attack, following a warning by the Trump administration of serious consequences if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces followed through with their plans.

U.S. intelligence detected “active preparations for chemical weapons use” at the same air base from which the regime allegedly had launched its prior chemical attack last April that caused mass casualties. President Trump had responded to the April chemical attack with a barrage of cruise missiles targeting that air base. The White House issued its public warning to the Assad regime on Monday in unambiguous terms, declaring that Assad and his military would pay a "heavy price" if his regime conducted another chemical attack.

"It appears that they took the warning seriously. They didn’t do it,” Mattis told reporters.
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, went even further in crediting the Trump administration for stopping Assad at least for now. “I can tell you that due to the President's actions, we did not see an incident," Ambassador Haley claimed at a House of Representatives foreign affairs committee hearing. "I would like to think that the President saved many innocent men, women and children."

It is difficult to prove what may have actually motivated Assad. In any case, whether Assad holds back for good remains to be seen. But we do know the Trump administration is watching constantly for any moves by the Assad regime that could signal an imminent chemical attack and has military assets in place to swiftly respond to such an attack, if not prevent one in the first place.

President Trump not only demonstrated last April that he would follow through on his threats if certain red lines of his were crossed, unlike our previous president. In addition to its warning, the Trump administration may have sent some concrete signals to the Assad regime that it means business this time as well. According to Debkafile, “Signs were gathering in Washington and the Middle East Tuesday, June 26 that the Trump administration was preparing a substantial military operation against the Syrian army and Bashar Assad’s allies, such as the foreign pro-Iranian Shiite militias and Hizballah. Some US military sources suggested that an American preemptive strike was in store in the coming hours to prevent Assad’s army from again resorting to chemical warfare against his people.”

Assad may still decide to launch another chemical attack, figuring that his key allies, particularly Russia, will continue to back him. No doubt, he took note of Russia’s stern response to the U.S.’s downing of a Syrian warplane earlier this month, including a warning from the Russian Defense Ministry that “All kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets." The Syrian regime had also already taken some precautions by moving most of its operational aircraft to a Russian airbase in Syria after the April missile strike. The Russian airbase is protected by fairly advanced air defense systems. An American missile strike on Syrian aircraft located at a Russian air base would in all likelihood be seen as a major escalation of the war by the Russian government, risking a direct military confrontation between U.S. and Russia that the Trump administration may be loath to risk. As if to thumb his nose at the Trump administration’s latest threats by demonstrating the strength of his military alliance with Russia, Assad was seen strutting around a Russian air baseinspecting its aircraft and defense systems. He was even photographed sitting in the cockpit of a Russian fighter jet.

Indeed, Russia appears ready to raise the stakes to bolster the Syrian dictator’s regime. Debkafile reports that Russia is “building a new base in southeastern Syria,” which would “provide Russia with a lever of control over the volatile Syrian southeast and its borders, where US-backed and Iranian-backed forces are fighting for dominance.”

As Russia raises the stakes, the U.S. must be clearer than ever as to its strategic objectives in Syria, which it is willing to back up with military force even in the face of Russian threats.  We must do all we can to prevent getting sucked into Syria’s civil war, including by undertaking any military efforts at regime change. That said, we must repel any military action by the Syrian regime or its allies that would prevent us from prosecuting the war against ISIS, which remains our number one objective until the ISIS sanctuaries, infrastructure and leadership are for all intents and purposes destroyed. 

However, we also cannot ignore the threat that Assad’s chemical weapons program continues to pose. The Obama administration had thought that it had largely eliminated the threat “diplomatically,” when it reached a phony deal with Russia to oversee the removal and destruction of the Syrian regime’s declared chemical weapons. The opportunity for cheating was all too plain to see, except by Obama and his clueless Secretary of State John Kerry. We are now seeing the consequences. According to Secretary of Defense Mattis, Syria’s chemical program remains intact.

It is not only what Assad has been doing in unleashing his ghastly chemical weapons on his own people, causing horrible suffering in their wake, which demands our attention. After all, Assad has been causing such suffering with conventional weapons as well, including his use of barrel bombs, which we have repeatedly condemned but have not taken specific military action to stop. To do so would almost inevitably draw us into a wider war. What makes chemical and other weapons of mass destruction different is their potential proliferation to the very Islamic terrorists we are trying to defeat. The transfer of chemical or biological weapons to terrorist hands would represent the most dangerous outcome of the Syrian conflict to the rest of the world, including to the United States. That is why we must monitor where we believe Assad’s remaining chemical weapons and production facilities are located, prevent them from being used or even moved from known locations, do all that we can to keep them out of the hands of the terrorists and destroy the chemical weapons and production facilities when the opportunity presents itself.


Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267133/syria-trumps-red-line-may-be-holding-joseph-klein

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

American "Fear of Sharia" Is Anything but "Silly" - A.Z. Mohamed




by A.Z. Mohamed

In fact, both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments.

  • To allay fears inspired in Americans by what he called a "right-wing caricature" of Islamic jurisprudence, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claimed, falsely, that it "does not presume to replace American law. It agrees with its underlying values and promotes them." In fact, both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments.
  • A new problem seems to have sprung up: some disembodied entity at Google apparently decided, with a few swipes of a bear-paw, to censor all the contents from these historically accurate think-tank postings. What is Google trying to keep you from knowing? Material that would be more dangerous for you to know or more dangerous for you not to know? How considerate of Google to have made this decision for you!
  • American fear of sharia is anything but "silly." It comes not a minute too soon.
In a recent op-ed in the New York Daily News, Kuwaiti American Sufi cleric and activist Feisal Abdul Rauf -- who served more than 25 years as the imam of the Masjid al-Farah Mosque in New York City -- argued that nobody in the United States should be worried about the incorporation of Islamic law, sharia, into the legal system or should be protesting it. To allay fears inspired in Americans by what he called a "right-wing caricature" of Islamic jurisprudence, Rauf claimed, falsely, that sharia "does not presume to replace American law. It agrees with its underlying values and promotes them." In fact, both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb[1] and Hassan al-Banna, openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments.


Both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb (right) and Hassan al-Banna (left), openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Hmm, a new problem seems to have sprung up: some disembodied entity at Google apparently decided, with a few swipes of a bear-paw, to censor all the contents from these historically accurate think-tank postings. What is Google trying to keep you from knowing? Material that would be more dangerous for you to know or more dangerous for you not to know? How considerate of Google to have made this decision for you!

Anyhow, Rauf then goes on to say that sharia courts would never be sanctioned in the U.S. "The First Amendment, which prevents government establishment of religion, forbids it," he writes, incorrectly.

The First Amendment, in its entirety, reads as follows:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Rauf then proceeds to defend sharia against its detractors.

"Sharia is not about amputations and stoning," he assured readers, again incorrectly.
Rauf continues: "...Within the history of Islam, they have rarely occurred." A short search in google belies that.

"What Islamic law does prescribe," he goes on, in a breathtaking example of taqiyya [obfuscation] and kitman [dissimulation] -- which are both permitted[2] in Islam under certain circumstances, such as to defend Islam -- "are the same do's [sic] and don'ts of the Ten Commandments — the social imperatives most of us recognize whatever our religion."

Ironically, the Reuters photo selected by the Daily News op-ed editor to accompany the piece -- a snapshot of a Muslim bride at her "sharia" wedding – provided inadvertent evidence of Rauf's deceit. Sharia forbids taking, printing or disseminating photos except when required (such as to obtain a passport) or otherwise necessary. In addition, according to sharia, a female Muslim must cover her entire body, her hair and preferably her face -- so as not to arouse sexual desire in men other than her husband. As it is written in the Quran (33:59):
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should draw over themselves their jilbab (outer garments) (when in public); this will be more conducive to their being recognized (as decent women) and not harassed."
One frequently quoted hadith (the actions and saying of the Prophet Muhammad) goes farther, branding women who are "dressed but appear to be naked" as "inviting to evil and will be inclined to it. They will not enter Jannah (paradise) and they will not even smell its fragrance."

The bride in the photo illustrating Rauf's article is wearing a very revealing dress, which exposes not only her face and hair, but her entire upper body and a view of cleavage. Although it is likely that the picture was taken while she was with a group of women, it is now on public display, enabling men other than her husband to see it.

As someone who has shared the article on social media, Rauf would be considered by sharia to be among those responsible for "inviting to evil" through its dissemination, as would the bride herself, the groom and her other male guardians, such as her father and brothers.

In any country governed by sharia, such as Iran, these transgressors could expect not only divine retribution, but punishment ("ta'zir"), meted out by a qadi (judge), Muslim ruler, religious police or other disciplinary forces. This punishment is often imprisonment or brutal lashing.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, a woman was arrested last December for tweeting a picture of herself without a hijab or abaya.

Such instances are completely absent from Rauf's article.

Rather than whitewashing the Islamic legal system, and trying to assuage what the headline of the piece calls the "silly American fear" of sharia, Rauf -- and the family and imam of the Muslim bride in the photo -- should be grateful for living in the United States, where they are not subjected to such cruel and senseless punishments. American fear of sharia is anything but "silly." It comes not a minute too soon.
A.Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.

[1] "any system, in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the source of all authority are human [is doomed to failure because it] deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out -- those who by themselves devise laws for other to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves." [p.58]
[2] Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam (London: Mu'assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004), p. 32.


A.Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10575/sharia-fear

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Left’s Un-Democratic Seduction of the Democrats - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield

The left’s endgame isn’t winning elections. It’s eliminating them.



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

Democrats have lost the White House and Congress. Their statewide losses are catastrophic. But the institutional strength of the left has only grown stronger. Each Democrat defeat hollows out the party but increases the power and influence of the left to move the party in an undemocratic direction.

The defeats have elevated the roles of the left’s unelected power bases from the judiciary to the media to academia to the bureaucracy and the non-profit sector. These are the core of the “Resistance”. The mission of the “Resistance” is not to plan for a future democratic victory, but an undemocratic coup.

The Democrats had been radicalized into alienating their traditional working class constituencies. They had been seduced into believing that they could lose the heartland and still win elections. After pushing the party into a politically untenable extremism, the Democrats were convinced to abandon democracy.

Democratic elections had been the left’s greatest obstacle in its plot to take over the Democrat Party.

Elections meant moderation, triangulation and big tents. Those are all anathema to the left. As long as the Democrats had to compete in conservative districts, they wouldn’t be able to support terrorism, crime, total wealth redistribution, radical social policies and the rest of the left’s totalitarian program.

Losing the South was the best thing that ever happened to the left’s plans for the Democrat Party. And it has no intention of trying recapture it, or any other area, on any terms other than its own. It isn’t interested in winning elections. The left’s ideal political purity can only be achieved undemocratically. Politics is the art of compromise. Democracy requires listening to people. That’s not what the left does.

The less the Democrats listen to voters, the more influence the left has over their agenda, ideas and tactics. Instead of paying attention to democratic ‘market signals’ from the populace, they become an ideological echo chamber for the media, academia and the radical non-profits of the institutional left.

Fake polls and media spin is used to promise big wins. And when those wins don’t materialize, the left invents conspiracy theories that discredit the election and uses them as leverage to radicalize the Democrats even further by convincing them that they are entitled to overturn the election.

The left destroyed the Democrat Party. It tricked it into becoming unpopular, lied to it that it would win and then convinced it that it didn’t win because of foul play and should stage a presidential coup.

Each disastrous step seemed logical at the time. There was going to be a new majority. The Democrats had to get out front to create a new national reality. Reactionary voices in the party had to be ignored. The “youth” was where it was at. Immigrants were transforming America. All the polls were on their side. The only reason they could have possibly lost was the hackers and all the fake news.

And all the while the left was consciously making the Democrats untenable as a political party by cutting them off from their working class base and their geographic constituencies.  

The Democrat Party is no longer a national party. It’s the political movement associated with small groups of elites out of a few dozen cities and associated suburbs. Its national presence outside these cities continues withering every year. Subtract the media, unions and billionaire backers and it’s just the Green Party with more of a history. If a radical leftist party were to gain more traction in the Bay Area, Chicago and New York, the Democrats could very easily vanish as thoroughly as the Federalists.

But the left’s endgame isn’t winning elections. It’s eliminating them.

Radicalization is the process by which everyone left of center comes around to realizing that the “system” with its multiple parties, compromises and votes allotted to everyone just doesn’t work.

The more elections the Democrats lose, the more they come around to that point of view.

After Hillary’s defeat, the media has abandoned the old liberal pretenses of objectivity and open dialogue. Instead it militantly advocates agendas. Its outlets openly abuse and insult opponents. The media shifted from bias to advocacy out of a conviction, occasionally stated in its own columns and editorials, that the public was too stupid to be influenced by mere bias. It had to have it spelled out for it that Trump is a liar. The media can no longer subtly influence. It must browbeat into compliance.

That is what a radicalized media looks like.

A radicalized media disregards truth, facts and objectivity. It only wants to win at any cost. It has no faith in the public. Instead it views the public with an anti-democratic contempt.

But the Democrats have adopted an anti-democratic tone that is suspicious of and hostile to the public. The various explanations for their defeat, big money, racism, fake news, coalesce around the general unfitness of the public. Even Obama’s old “messaging failure” explanation for his failures speaks to it.

Americans are too stupid, gullible, bigoted and ignorant to be able to vote.

As class warfare has given way to identity politics, popular representation had to make way for identity representation. The Democrats may no longer represent the South or the West, but they instead represent a plurality of racial and sexual identities. Their coalition of illegal alien gay Muslims has more democratic legitimacy than all the white voters who backed Trump.

That’s the underlying theme of the “Resistance”. Political legitimacy doesn’t come from elections, but from diversity. Diversity has failed to win elections, the way that it was supposed to. But it can always end them. Why bother representing people based around random geographical borders or whether they happen to have citizenship, when you can represent a plurality of identities?

And once you represent a plurality of oppressed peoples, why bother with elections? Elections only get in the way of achieving true representation through equality.

This is where the left always ends up sooner or later.

The Democrats have become just another totalitarian leftist cult. The trouble is that they’re not a handful of angry radicals in a Chicago basement. Delusional behavior like this might be amusing from a revolutionary cell of a handful of extremists who all teach sociology for a living. It’s a national crackup when a major political party descends into the same sort of dangerous lunacy on a national scale.

Overturning the results of a presidential election is only a start on the way to much worse things. The left is once again approaching Lenin’s old revolutionary formula of government as “a democracy for the exploited and a means of suppressing the exploiters” along with the “exclusion from democracy” of the exploiters. And, like every disastrous preceding step, it is beginning to seem logical to the Dems.

The Democrats have replaced real constituencies with ideological ones. The party heavily depends on bloc voting in areas where democracy is meaningless and political choice is non-existent. Every form of meritocracy has been replaced with quotas and affirmative action. If candidates qualify by quota, why not voters? That is the dangerous next step. It begins with “rebalancing” representation to favor the emerging new constituencies and ends by eliminating representation as anything more than a formality.

The left has led the donkey party to this poisonous swamp. The question is will the donkey drink?


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267116/lefts-un-democratic-seduction-democrats-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Qatar Crisis and China - Roie Yellinek




by Roie Yellinek

China, the second-largest economy in the world, has an interest in the achievement of a resolution to the crisis, and may have a role to play.



Qatari and Chinese aircraft, photo by Ken Fielding via Flickr CC BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 513, June 29, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 5, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and several other Sunni Muslim countries suspended their relationships with Qatar, creating one of the worst crises to befall the Muslim Sunni world in a decade. China, the second-largest economy in the world, has an interest in the achievement of a resolution to the crisis, and may have a role to play. It can tell one side “you made your point” and the other “you learned your lesson”. China needs these countries and has a lot to offer them in return.

The crisis currently facing the Muslim Sunni world might prove a historical turning point.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and several other Sunni Muslim countries cut off their relationships with Qatar on June 5. They did not simply sever diplomatic relations and economic cooperation, but went so far as to shut off their land routes, maritime routes, and airways. They told their citizens who live in Qatar, and Qatari citizens who live in their countries, to leave within two weeks.
These highly irregular and dramatic steps are explained by Doha’s support for radical Islamic movements that the Gulf countries believe threaten their stability and dominion. The Gulf countries are also making a statement about Al-Jazeera, the Qatari media group, which they perceive to be undermining their sovereignty.

None of these accusations is new. So why do this now? The formal answer, according to the Saudis, is that it is a response to statements by the Qatari Emir. But it could well be that US president Donald Trump, whether intentionally or otherwise, gave the Saudi King carte blanche to make this move.
Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia seems to have been the catalyst. The move against Qatar happened two weeks after his visit, during which he met with the king and other local leaders. The Gulf countries felt emboldened and empowered by Trump, so much so that they now believe they can play a more aggressive game with their enemies. Qatar is the first to suffer.

Another element that might explain the timing of the move is the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting, at which will be discussed Chinese president Xi Jinping’s support for the inclusion of Iran in the bloc. Saudi Arabia, which does not want to see Iran get closer to China (or Russia, which is on the SCO as well), might have elected to make the move against Qatar now in order to harm one of Iran’s closest allies and weaken Iran prior to the meeting.

China, as the second-largest economy in the world, has its own point of view on the spiraling sectarian crisis in the Sunni world. China and Qatar have a long and deep history of cooperation based on gas, consumer goods, and investment. Qatar, as owner of the world’s second-largest reserve of natural gas, exports gas to China. In terms of finance, Qatar is an important partner of China’s as well. In 2015, Doha set up a clearinghouse for the Chinese yuan (renminbi).

That said, the cooperation between China and the countries imposing the sanctions on Qatar also runs deep. It is enough to mention the oil Saudi Arabia supplies to China, and the fact that the UEA has the status of a finance hub for China (and for others). The UEA enjoys this status thanks to its business-friendly regulatory environment and high-level facilities.

What could be the implications of this crisis for China? It could seriously complicate the Chinese “Belt and Road” initiative, which received a significant boost from the Chinese president during his conference last month on the subject. There are two ways the initiative could be affected.

First, China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the organization that unifies the Arab countries in the Gulf, have discussed free trade zones among all the parties. The cutting off of Qatar from the rest of the GCC might suspend or even cancel that discussion entirely. These free trade zones are highly important to China, since about 50% of the foreign energy used by Chinese industry comes from GCC members.

The second issue is this. The “Belt and Road” initiative will rely on the cooperation of many countries, and the Gulf countries are a vital link in the chain. Any disruption can damage the initiative, and the Chinese president very much wishes to avoid this calamity.

Chinese traditional policy, however, has been to avoid any kind of involvement in foreign countries’ sovereignty issues or internal disputes. This policy will be put to the test.

Despite its great interest in a resolution, it is hard to see China take an active role in this dispute. Chinese foreign policy has been successful to date by finding a balance between countries undergoing rows or even fighting wars. The most relevant example is the way China has found to deal with both Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite the deep hostility between the two.

The Qatar crisis is a major issue in the Middle East and the global arena. China, while suffering in the short term, will find the way to deal with the two sides. China could, in fact, be part of the solution. Some countries, like Kuwait, are trying to find a solution to the conflict, but they lack China’s resources and influence.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying recently said, “China hopes that the relevant countries will properly deal with differences through dialogue and consultation, and stay united to jointly promote regional peace and stability”. If the Chinese make the effort to mediate between the sides, they can use the fact that Qatar’s reputation has already been deeply damaged and that the group of countries that stand in opposition to it is already essentially victorious. China can tell one side “you made your point” and the other “you learned your lesson”. Now is the time to discuss the future. China needs these countries and has a lot to offer them in return.

View PDF


  Roie Yellinek is a doctoral student in the department of Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/qatar-crisis-china/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Articles In Gulf Press: The Escalation In Gaza – A Result Of Qatar, Iran, Turkey Toying With Lives Of Innocent Palestinians - MEMRI




by MEMRI

The articles – blamed Hamas of the firing of the rocket into Israel, and claimed that it was escalating the situation in Gaza on purpose in order to serve the interests of its three patron countries.

Following the June 27, 2017 Israeli airstrikes in Gaza in response to the firing of a rocket from Gaza into Israel, articles in the Gulf press attacked Hamas and the countries that support it: Qatar, Iran and Turkey. The articles – published against the backdrop of the inter-Gulf tension and the Boycott imposed on Qatar, chiefly by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt – blamed Hamas of the firing of the rocket into Israel, and claimed that it was escalating the situation in Gaza on purpose in order to serve the interests of its three patron countries. These countries, said the articles, place innocent Palestinians in danger in order to divert global attention away from the Gulf crisis. 
The following are excerpts from two articles on this topic:   

'Al-Ittihad' Editorial: Qatar, Iran, Turkey Use Gaza As Bargaining Chip, Toying With The Lives Of Its Innocent People

Muhammad Al-Hamadi, editor of the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, wrote: "On June 27, without any warning, the Arabs woke up to discover that Gaza had been bombarded. Why? What has happened that we don't know about? What did the Gazan Palestinians do to find themselves under Israeli fire? Has a third intifada broken out? Has the battle for the liberation of Jerusalem begun?

"In practice, none [of the above] happened. All [that happened was] that those who trade in the Palestinian problem, who are themselves in trouble, remembered an old bargaining chip that they have long been using successfully, [and decided] to use it in the dire circumstances that have befallen their friend Qatar, which serves as their open bank [account]. They thought that [using this bargaining chip] would be a good way to divert the Arabs' attention away from Qatar and focus it [instead] on Gaza and its residents who are being bombarded with missiles by the Israeli enemy. 

"This conduct of Qatar and its allies, in Palestine and elsewhere, is despicable. How disgraceful it is that some are willing to toy with the lives of innocents and with the future of small children in Gaza in order to achieve political aims. For a long time now, some [elements] – chiefly Iran, Qatar and Turkey – have been toying with the Palestinian cause and they were successful, but the cost was high: hundreds and even thousands of innocent Palestinians who have been martyred or wounded and crippled. What was the [Palestinian's] reward? The reward was a donation drive among Arab and Muslim countries that raised millions. [But only] a handful of riyals and dinars was handed out to the disaster-stricken Palestinians. It is always the case that the [Gazan] people get crumbs, while the rest goes to the loyal partner, Hamas.

"We have said from the beginning of the boycott of Qatar that the game is over, but Qatar apparently isn't listening. Continuing this transparently [wicked] behavior will no longer avail [it], because the peoples are no longer fooled. If in the past they trusted the propaganda of the ideologically recruited Al-Jazeera channel, which serves certain goals, today the peoples no longer watch Al-Jazeera and are no longer influenced by it and by other Arab or foreign channels. Information has become very accessible, and [cyber]space has opened up in [this] era of new media. Nobody has a monopoly on the facts, and it is no longer possible to deceive the peoples. That is what the Palestinian people discovered on July 27. It discovered that there are those who want to exploit it and drag it into a new confrontation with the Israeli enemy, while those who plan [the confrontation] stay in five-star hotels in Doha and Istanbul and in other capitals that shelter the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and of terror.

"Our friends in Gaza informed us that the [Gaza] Strip was not bombarded and that only two Israeli missiles were fired in response to the rocket fired from Gaza into Israel. Everyone knows that Qatar is the one that is 'bombarded' and boycotted. Who gains from the firing of the rocket and from the situation in which Gaza is bombarded?"[i]

Saudi Columnist: Qatar, Iran Sponsor Hamas, Which Uses Gazans As Human Shields

Hani Al-Zahiri wrote in the Saudi 'Okaz daily: "It has been centuries since our region has seen a political gamble as terrible as the Iranian and Qatari regimes' [current] gamble with the lives and the cause of the Palestinians. These two [regimes] adopted the Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas organization, and supported it by every means when it staged an uprising against the legal Palestinian leadership [the PA] and took over Gaza, and then turned the innocent residents [of Gaza] into a human shield for the Hamas leadership.

"The state of the Gaza Strip in the face of the Israeli bombardments, which usually come in direct response to Hamas actions, reminds us of  [a situation in which] a man kidnaps a girl and then provokes [the soldiers in] a military base to open fire on him and uses the girl as a human shield. The kidnapper in this case is Hamas and the girl is Gaza and its helpless people. The portly Hamas leaders meet in Doha and Tehran, laugh around tables laden with delicacies and order their young [fighters] to open the gates of Hell to the Palestinians by [shooting] firecrackers – which they call 'rockets' – at Israeli [army] posts, so that Gaza will be bombarded and women, children and the elderly will die. Then Hamas [officials] will come out, condemn this on satellite channels, and demand support and funds to rescue the Palestinian people, before going back to their feast, safe and sound. In the meantime the entire world will watch the suffering of an unarmed people that has no means to defend itself.

"Everything that has happened to the Palestinians since Hamas took over them indicates that their second enemy, after Israel, is Qatar and Iran, which are using a tinderbox named Hamas to burn them in order to achieve purely political aims... The question now is why, on the day before yesterday [June 26], Qatar and its allies prompted Hamas to fire on Israeli positions, thus inviting Israel to respond by bombarding Gaza. The answer is clearly that this was a despicable attempt and a new political gamble by the Qatari regime, aimed at easing the noose of the Gulf boycott [of Qatar, a boycott] which prompted calls to sue [this regime] in the international [court] for the black [crime] of supporting terror. Today [Qatar] desperately needs to divert the world's attention in another direction, even at the expense of the life and blood of a defenseless people... The Qataris and Iranians will exploit the event to utter phrases of pretended sympathy for the Palestinians, but only the people in Gaza know that they are the victims of this pair of plotters [Qatar and Iran]."[ii] 
 

[i] Al-Ittihad (UAE), June 28, 2017.
[ii] 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), June 28, 2017.


MEMRI

Source: https://www.memri.org/reports/articles-gulf-press-escalation-gaza-%E2%80%93-result-qatar-iran-turkey-toying-lives-innocent

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Why the European Union Is Failing - E. Jeffrey Ludwig




by E. Jeffrey Ludwig

The management team is an elite cadre in top management, and mid-level and lower level management who are essentially white collar employees, all of whom are not “representatives of the people.”

What will the future of the European Union be? Bruce Thornton projects a solution to their future that lies in the EU showing greater respect for the diversity of cultures of its member states. He states,

“The challenge facing Europe today is not just reforming its economies or crafting saner immigration policies. It is whether the EU leadership can allow a greater recognition of and respect for the member nations’ distinct identities and sovereignty….”

In short, there needs to be a better balance between the EU continental/globalist aspirations and the national identities and aspirations of the member states.

To some degree we can see the EU as using the USA as a model of federalism. Just as our states came together to form a “more perfect union,” the European member states, beginning with the Treaty of Rome in 1954, have worked step-by-step to build a common economy and other areas of integrated policy and action. The parts of Europe coordinated to form the whole known as the European Union, just as the thirteen original colonies coalesced in a spirit of unity to form our national entity.

Yet, the net result to this point was not to create a European government per se, although that may well be on the horizon, but to create a bureaucratic network of rules and regulations, a common currency (the Euro), and joint rapid reaction forces (separate from NATO). These rapid reaction forces are subordinate to the European Union Military Staff, and complement other EU military forces. The existence of a military program managed by the EU often comes as a surprise to those who think of the EU as a purely economic arrangement.

Le Berlaymont, EU Commission Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium

Representation to the EU management team is not elected, but is appointed by the several governments, and the leadership remains more or less anonymous. The management team is an elite cadre in top management, and mid-level and lower level management who are essentially white collar employees, all of whom are not “representatives of the people.” Also, there are vast numbers of clerical workers to carry out the extensive paperwork tasks.

In addition to the existence of the rapid reaction forces mentioned above, the security of Europe is primarily managed by NATO forces and written treaty guarantees, by special help from the U.S., and by the individual armed forces of individual member states. However, Turkey, with most of its land mass in Asia, is a member of NATO which may prove to be a weak link under various threat scenarios. 

The vast numbers of rules and regulations generated by and enforced by the EU and its predecessor the EEC (European Economic Commission) become a kind of administrative state, a non-government, yet acting as a quasi-government, deriving its authority from the member states, yet not being a government in the firm sense that each of the member states is a government. It is at this point that we see a disjunction, and that the federalism of the EU, unlike that of the U.S., is a kind of bogus or pseudo-federalism.

First, the EU was not created as a bulwark against a common enemy, as was the U.S. that felt compelled to reject Great Britain because of 27 oppressions listed emphatically in the Declaration of Independence. The federalism of the EU is based on rejection of an abstraction, namely that peace is endangered by competition among the member states on the European continent. There is an assumption that common markets will breed peace, as you will not have member states each chasing scarce resources and thereby coming into conflict. Theory would hold that somehow the “good of all” economically will translate into the good of all politically.

The EU, and the EEC before it, may have been embraced as a bulwark against Germany. Germany’s aggressions led to two world wars, although politically correct doctrine usually does not condemn German nationalism, but simply condemns “nationalism” (conceived by the Europeans, according to Thornton, as a “proto-fascist throwback”). Nonetheless, despite its recent forays into utopian multilateralism via the EEC and EU, Germany still had to sign the war guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles, and was divided at the end of World War II, and its leaders were tried with many executed and imprisoned. This is a dark backdrop to its present active leadership role in European cooperation.

But in addition to its opposition to Great Britain’s abuses of power, the USA also had a vision of “rights” that went well beyond that of the mother country. Although there were still property qualifications for voting at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified, those qualifications disappeared in a relatively short time. Our Constitution, and even the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution, reflected a vision of humanity and of government far beyond that British Declaration of Rights which were, up until our post-revolutionary governments, the most exquisite statements of “people power” that had ever been conceived.

Many of those British rights were incorporated into our Constitution, and certainly were expressed in the separate constitutions of the thirteen original colonies before they were states, and when they became states in 1783. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government passed the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787, that described how the Northwest Territory, won from the British during the Revolutionary War, would be governed. In those laws, slavery in those newly acquired territories was forbidden. That was a great moral leap forward by the new country, and a slap in the face of the plantation slave power in the South. It was also a lesson to Britain, which still held slavery to be legal throughout its empire. In fact, our slavery prohibition in the former British territories might be considered as an opening gambit inviting visionaries like Richard Wilberforce in England to advocate and eventually succeed in having slavery abolished by our former mother country.

Additionally, we had a vision of a tripartite government, of those three branches under checks and balances, of federalism, of enumerated powers intended to restrain the inherent tendency of every government to assert more and more tyrannical control, and a Bill of Rights to articulate special abuses that individual citizens and states must be protected from. The role of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch were defined, and the means and qualifications to serve in those branches was defined. The ideal of an hereditary nobility was specifically rejected (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) as incompatible with the aspirations of a free people.

So, while Prof. Thornton may be correct that the EU’s ailments might be somewhat ameliorated by giving more attention to the identities of the member states, the master bureaucrats of EU hegemony have failed to articulate a unifying vision for the continent that excels the single vision of each and every one of the member states. A vision of far-reaching significance, clarity, and hope cannot emerge as if it were mere policy. Just as our nation’s vision came from minds informed by the search for truth, a courageous and moral mindset, incredible knowledge of the political history of the world, philosophical immersion, and love of God, any future visions deserving of respect and providing a foundation for government must be likewise sourced. It is unlikely that the EU will ever produce such a vision.


E. Jeffrey Ludwig

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/why_the_european_union_is_failing.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Quora Warns Its Users to Be Nice to Islam - Paul Austin Murphy




by Paul Austin Murphy

It's not the case that abuse or swearwords offend the majority of Muslims. It's the case that any criticism whatsoever of Islam offends the majority Muslims.

According to Wikipedia, “Quora is a question-and-answer site where questions are asked, answered, edited and organized by its community of users.” It was founded in 2009. In early 2017, Quora was reported to have received Series D funding and given a valuation of $1.8 billion. This website “community” has about “100 million monthly unique visitors”; of whom about half are from the U.S. and 15% are from India.

A few of days ago I received this email from Quora:
That email above was in response to an answer I gave to this question:

This is my reply -- the reply which brought about the Quora warning:
Like the well-known and notorious situation on Facebook, my reply would have been reported to Quora by Muslims (or possibly by Leftists/Islamophiles). This is such an easy thing to do that any reader who suffers cognitive dissonance from an unwanted reply only needs to press a link and... hey presto! The readers of this piece can also easily report an answer (or even a question) which they don't like.

The thing about this particular warning (or statement on “moderation”) from Quora is that it doesn't actually accuse me of using obscenities or of being rude. It certainly doesn't accuse me of lies or dissimulation either. It accuses me, instead, of not being “nice” to Islam. (Or, alternatively, it accuses me of not being “respectful” to Islam.) Sure, it doesn't explicitly say that I wasn't nice (or respectful) to Islam itself; though it doesn't say that I wasn't nice (or respectful) to Muslims either. In any case, I was neither unnice nor disrespectful.

All this gives the game away, really. It's not the case that abuse or swearwords offend the majority of Muslims. It's the case that any criticism whatsoever of Islam offends the majority Muslims. Don't doubt it!

Despite that, Muslims and Islamophiles/Leftists make a point of telling Islam's critics how many Muslims there are in the world. (A figure that literally changes every time you hear it.) They also tell us how long Islam has lasted. From that information alone, we're supposed to conclude that Islam must be a great thing. Or, if not exactly a great thing, then we're meant to conclude that there must be at least something positive about Islam.

Firstly, numbers and longevity alone don't prove anything that's necessarily positive. At the peak of communism, for example, there were dozens of millions of communists/Marxists worldwide.
Secondly, and more relevantly, one important reason for Islam's longevity and the number of Muslims is the fact that Islamic culture disallows any criticism of Islam, Muhammed, and the Koran -- again, literally! (This is something that non-Islamic Quora is now contributing to.) It's hopeless to criticise Islam in a Muslim country. Or you can if you wish; though, if you do, you'll have to face the consequences of a stoning, imprisonment, ostracism or death.

Added to all that is the fact that Islam is passed on from generation to generation; though this itself is strongly tied to Islam's culture of conformity and non-criticism.

Now these are the primary reasons why there are so many Muslims and why Islam has survived so long.

The Reply that Received a Warning

In detail, let's see why my post brought about a warning.

It was said earlier that Quora didn't accuse me of lying or dissimulation. It didn't accuse me of being abusive either. However, as many people now know, the very act of criticising Islam is indeed deemed to be “abuse” or “mockery” by most Muslims.

You'll have to forgive me quoting myself here. I wrote:
“The Koran -- Islam’s holy book -- explicitly calls for the death of the 'infidel', 'unbeliever', etc. So do most of the hadith.”
That is correct. There are around 109 passages in the Koran which call for the death of the infidel, “unbeliever”, etc. Now, of course, these passages have been interpreted so as to show us their real “context”. They've even been interpreted to show us that such passages are, in actual fact, pacifist, liberal, or even “anti-racist” in nature.

Very many unbelievers -- and even some Muslims -- know that these 21st century interpretations are bogus and simple examples of Islamic taqiyya.

And on the subject of taqiyya. The following is also a part of a response to my own reply (in the above image):
“So to answer your question -- no, Islam doesn't request to kill non-Muslims, on the contrary it asks them to protect minorities…”
I wonder if the passage in the Koran which says that Islam “asks [Muslims] to protect minorities” also requires a “context.” Or are the positive -- rather than the negative - passages contextless?
Take this putative quotation from Muhammed. It was provided by a Muslim HuffPost journalist -- Kashif N. Chaudhry -- in a piece entitled 'Islam Requires Muslims to Protect Christians'. It reads:
“Whoever kills a non-Muslim citizen under a Muslim government shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise.”
Well, for a start, there was no notion of a “citizen” in the Arab world in the time of Muhammed or even long after. Only democracies and/or nations have a notion of a citizen. This concept of a citizen can be said to date back to the ancient Greeks; or, in its modern form, to date back only a couple of hundred years. In any case, the basic fact is that citizenship is completely alien to Islam.

It's obvious (to all but this HuffPost journalist) that the quote refers to a “non-Muslim citizen” who's “under a Muslim government.” That meant, and still means, that if one were a loyal and passive Dhimmi in a Muslim or Islamic state, then usually you weren't killed by Muslims rulers. However, there was still a very strong chance that you'd be killed by any number of Muslims. And if a Dhimmi were to be disloyal or religiously active, then Muslim rulers would have probably killed or imprisoned him or her.

The other thing is that no source or hyperlink is provided for the quotation in the HuffPost. That means that it was probably doctored by either the aforesaid journalist or by another Muslim. Now isn't it also strange that when you Google this quote in full, the only sources which appear refer to this very same article? It seems to appear nowhere else.

This isn't surprising considering that Kashif N. Chaudhry has made the prophet Muhammed seem like a fellow HuffPost journalist; rather than the 7th century Arab warlord that he was. The other possibility is that this journalist simply made the quote up.

It's worth noting here that the many replies -- bar two! -- to this question -- “Does Islam say to kill Muslims?” -- were all from Muslims or Islamophiles (often professional experts). I wonder if the other Quora users who gave negative answers have also been reprimanded by this website. This isn't a surprise because after Americans, Indians are the biggest users of Quora. (172 million Muslims live in India.)
So, again, Quora warns its users not to be critical of -- or disrespectful to -- Islam. Moreover, Quora also warns us -- if obliquely -- not to to tell the truth about Islam either. Now isn't strange that a non-Muslim company voluntarily carries out actions which are in conformity with sharia blasphemy law?

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He has had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. Murphy is based in the county of Yorkshire, England.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/6_27_2017_18_19.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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