Good Grief: Charlie Brown, Jihadist

by Mark Tapson

Over the Christmas holiday, comedian Denis Leary​ – known for rapid-fire, politically incorrect standup rants – revived a several-years-old three-minute video from his production company by linking to it on the social network Twitter. The animated video, called “Merry F***ing Christmas,” is a parody of the long-running, annual Christmas special featuring Charlie Brown​ and his “Peanuts” gang. In the course of it, Leary makes a couple of jokes at Christianity’s expense and even takes a potshot at Scientologist actor Tom Cruise’s well-known contempt for the psychiatric profession. But the primary target of Leary’s Christmas satire is, unusually, Islam.

The grim-visaged Ayatollah Khomeini​ once famously remarked that there is no humor in Islam. Many of his fundamentalist brethren have made that point abundantly clear by rioting, torching, and murdering – or at the very least threatening to do so – whenever Islam and/or its prophet Mohammed is the butt of a joke, as in the notorious Danish cartoons or the “Mohammed” episode of Comedy Central’s South Park in 2010. And the West has learned its lesson. We have acquired a finely-tuned sensitivity toward Muslim hair-trigger rage and censor ourselves accordingly now. After all, in the multiculturalist West, everyone’s religion, race, sexuality and culture are off-limits from ridicule, except for straight white Christians.

Entertainers are comfortable taking comic jabs at the latter because they know that Christians, renowned for turning the other cheek, are a safe and easy target, and because, inexplicably, that’s what passes for “edgy” among comedians. Witness, for example, HBO’s smug atheist Bill Maher​ and his recent, uncalled for crudity on openly Christian quarterback Tim Tebow (in all fairness, Maher has contempt for all religions, but he reserves a particular venom for Christianity). Rare is the prominent comedian who is willing to lay into Islam these days, not only because doing so wouldn’t sit well with his or her left-leaning show biz compatriots, but because the not-uncommon Muslim response to being satirized is not cheek-turning but bomb-hurling.

In Leary’s video, a depressed Charlie Brown (here called “Farley Towne”) confesses that he is losing faith in Christianity this holiday season. Trudging downcast through the snow, he happens upon piano prodigy Linus, who says he converted to Islam in prison and recommends that Farley convert as well. Linus shares with him a volume from the popular “Idiots” series of how-to books, this one entitled “Al Qaeda​’s Terrorism for Idiots” – except “Terrorism” is scratched out and replaced with “Islam.” On the book’s cover is a bearded, turbaned version of Charlie Brown’s dog Snoopy saying, “Die infidels.”

“Farley” converts on the spot, changing his name to “Farley Ahmohammed al-Farouk al-Rashid.” When we next see him, he is bearded and kneeling on a prayer rug, but naturally, because he is the hapless Charlie Brown, he is incorrectly facing away from Mecca. Next, he interrupts the other kids’ preparations for a Christmas play with a bomb in hand. “With this bomb, you infidels will taste Allah’s infinite justice!” Again, because he’s Charlie Brown, the bomb fizzles out and the other kids have a loud laugh at his expense. A bearded Linus appears, but instead of delivering his expected, true-meaning-of-Christmas speech, he announces:

It is the duty of the jihadist to bring terror to the enemy and create one global, Islamic state where there is no music, no alcohol and no Western influences.

It’s a sad commentary on our unwillingness to confront global jihad that a comedian can bluntly and accurately state the goals of Islamic fundamentalists, and yet our own government has banished any mention of Islam from official discourse about national security.

Charlie Brown’s sister Sally responds to Linus’ speech by cooing, “Isn’t he the cutest radical Islamist you’ve ever seen?” Then Linus examines Charlie’s bomb and says, “It just needs a little hate.” The kids work together to beef it up into a nuclear weapon, and when it goes off accidentally, Charlie Brown and Linus wind up roasting in Hell. Charlie rubs his palms together eagerly and asks now for his 72 virgins, but when only 72 duplicates of nerdy, bespectacled Marcie appear, Charlie falls to his knees and asks, “Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Funny? No. Politically incorrect? Definitely. The video apparently hasn’t yet drawn an angry response from any Islamists themselves. It was many months after their initial publication before the Danish cartoons gathered momentum as a manufactured controversy; Leary’s video has already been out for years, but since there is no direct representation of Allah or Mohammed therein, perhaps there’s not enough blasphemy for fundamentalist outrage.

Nonetheless, suggesting a direct linkage between terrorism and Islam has apologists for the Religion of Peace up in arms. It has incurred cries of “Islamophobia!” from the totalitarian left, who revel in Bill Maher​’s anti-Christian hate speech but are humorless when their sacred cows such as Islam are mocked. Islamophobia Watch, run by two non-Muslim socialists, denounced it as “a jaw-droppingly Islamophobic video… Apparently crude anti-Muslim stereotyping is fine with Leary.” Apparently crude anti-Christian stereotyping is fine with them, though, because they don’t complain about that aspect of the video.

Someone at the more mainstream New York magazine online called it “severely offensive” and “messed up.” Another website dismissed it as a “particularly xenophobic one-note joke,” although at least they acknowledged that Leary is an “equal opportunity offender.” Indeed, an unapologetic Denis Leary’s Twitter response to the controversy was “If I produced a cartoon about a pedophile priest it wouldn’t mean all Catholics are pedophiles. Just the priests.” Editor John Nolte at Big Hollywood notes that those who are offended by the video’s so-called “Islamophobia” are predictably silent about its mocking of Christianity. He denounces the hypocrites thusly:

Screaming “Islamophobia,” “xenophobia,” “homophobia,” “bullying,” or anything of the like, is just the cowards’ way of telling the satirist to shut up. Repressive tolerance. These awful people hide their desire to silence free speech with the not-so-velvet hammer of political correctness.

Indeed. The Islamists constitute our greatest threat to free speech today, thanks to Secretary of State Clinton’s accommodation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to criminalize defamation of religion. But where they themselves fail to clamp down on perceived offenses like Leary’s video, the complicit left can be counted on to pick up the slack and carry on beating the drums of “Islamophobia.”

Mark Tapson

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/12/good-grief-charlie-brown-jihadist/

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

Egyptian Islamists Demand "Morals Patrols"

by Irfan Al-Alawi

The radical Islamist Nour party, or "Party of the Light," has captured more than a quarter of votes in the post-Mubarak Egyptian elections. Nour, which ran second to the Muslim Brotherhood in the polling, is a Wahhabi party, reproducing the ideology of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, under the label of "Salafism." Its rhetoric presents "Salafism" as pure Islam unchanged by 14 centuries of Muslim history in differing lands and cultures worldwide. Nour is hostile to non-Wahhabi Muslims, repressive of women's rights, and discriminatory against non-Muslims.

The Saudi mutawiyin or "morals patrols" – sometimes miscalled a "religious police" – coordinated by the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV)," are one of the most criticized institutions in the Saudi kingdom. Known as the "mutawiyin" or "volunteers," and as the "hai'a" or "the Commission," this militia is composed of at least 5,000 full-time members, assisted by thousands of more ordinary Saudis. Armed with thin, leather-covered sticks, they patrol Saudi cities enforcing the strictures of Wahhabi ideology. They descend on and harass women who are not fully covered below the ankle by the black cloak or abaya, and who go out in public without a face veil or niqab. They interfere with couples whom they suspect of being unmarried or otherwise unrelated. They prevent women from driving motor vehicles. They raid private homes looking for evidence of alcohol consumption. And not least, they disturb the prayers of Shias and Sunni Sufi Muslims whose forms of devotion are disapproved of by the Wahhabis.

The unexpected rise of Nour has left non-Muslim as well as Muslim commentators shocked and, in many cases, silent. But the Egyptian supporters of Wahhabism have wasted no time in demanding the importation of retrograde Saudi customs into Egypt. Egyptian Wahhabis have now called for the introduction of so-called "Morals Patrols" on the Saudi model.

As reported by writer Ramadan Abdul Qader in the Egyptian Gazette of January 2, a prominent local Wahhabi preacher, Youssef El-Badrai, called for the formation of a ministry to coordinate "morals patrols." According to El-Badrai, "This ministry could operate by making the Imam of each mosque, backed up by a police officer, responsible for ensuring that the Sharia [Islamic law] is applied in the streets."

In Egypt, so far, the incursions of the "morals patrols" in private and public life have been limited to statements like that of El-Badrai, and internet announcements calling for their establishment. Their mission is defined by proponents as the enforcement of Islamic standards of dress, the prevention of public gender-mixing between unmarried or otherwise unrelated men and women, and keeping businesses closed during Muslim prayer times. Their advocates have remained anonymous, although clothing shops and hairdressers report visits by alleged participants in the commission, preaching that their commerce is forbidden.

Although the Nour party itself has disclaimed a connection with the Egyptian project for "morals patrols," the defenders of the scheme, who have the Nour party logo on their website, have declared that the millions of votes cast for the Nour party prove that Egyptians desire such an organization supervising general behaviour. Al-Azhar, however, the world's leading Sunni Muslim university, has condemned the arrival of Egyptian "morals patrols" as a usurpation of Al-Azhar's standing as Egypt's sole religious authority.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, only Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran have maintained "Islamic morals patrols," although attempts to spread the practice have been recorded in fundamentalist enclaves in Africa, Southeast Asia, and in Gaza. During the war in Iraq, Wahhabi interlopers tried to introduce the mutawiyin there, but the effect was to alienate Iraqi Sunnis. Last year, nevertheless, a similar Shia Muslim group, the so-called "Swords of Righteousness" appeared south of Baghdad.

Saudi "morals patrols" are also responsible for cultural vandalism, in which the Islamic heritage of the country has been devastated. The pretext – a key element of Wahhabism – is the claim that preserving or honouring architectural monuments, where Muslims may pray for intercession by sacred personalities from Prophet Muhammad to noted Sufi sheikhs, promotes polytheism, or worship of objects other than the divine creator. The result has been, among many such acts, the transformation of the house where Muhammad was born into a cattle market, and then a library, and finally a hotel and apartment complex.

Other such incidents have included the levelling of the house where the Prophet Muhammad and his first wife, Khadijah lived, and construction on the site of public toilets, followed by an automatic teller machine. The grave markers and domes at cemeteries in Mecca and Medina, where the Prophet Muhammad's companions, successors, and later distinguished Muslims were interred, were removed after the Wahhabi seizure of the holy cities in 1925.

Wahhabi aggression became visible in Egypt soon after the collapse of Hosni Mubarak's government, when "Salafis" in Alexandria targeted 16 historic Sufi mosques for destruction. These included the city's most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13^th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu'l Abbas. Born in then-Muslim territory in Spain, Al-Mursi was a disciple of, and successor to, the Sufi sheikh Abu'l Hassan Al-Shadhili, founder of the Shadhili Sufi order, powerful throughout North Africa, South Asia, the Muslim communities of the Indian Ocean, and Indonesia.

Egyptians are now hearing that the Wahhabis will cover pre-Islamic monuments with wax, or screen them from public view, and that Egypt's Pharaonic antiquities must be treated in a different historical context, with Islamists in power. The danger to Egypt's ancient cultural legacy, as well as to the tourism industry, is real. The world has not forgotten that similar demolitions were carried out by the Taliban against the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

The Saudi "morals patrols" have considerable blood on their hands, including that of more than a dozen girls who died in a school fire in Mecca in March 2002. Attempting to escape the flames, the girls were pushed back into the burning building by mutawiyin who claimed they were concerned that the girls were insufficiently covered and could excite immorality among the civil defence personnel sent to fight the blaze.

The school fire was but one of many incidents of homicidal abuse by the Saudi mutawiyin. Since then, the so-called "Commission" has been the subject of several attempts to hold them legally responsible for the deaths of individuals -- both in their custody and in the victims' own houses -- in addition to countless assaults in public. Although in 2010, Saudi King Abdullah cut the financing of the mutawiyin, the 2012 Saudi budget included supplementary funding for them.

Irfan Al-Alawi

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2750/egyptian-islamists-morals-patrols

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

Germany Attempts to Silence Criticism of Islam

by Soeren Kern

German authorities have officially confirmed that they are monitoring German-language Internet websites that are critical of Muslim immigration and the Islamization of Europe.

According to Manfred Murck, director of the Hamburg branch of the German domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), his organization is studying whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of "breaching" the German constitution.

The BfV's move marks a significant setback for the exercise of free speech in Germany and comes amid a months-long smear campaign led by a triple alliance of leftwing German multicultural elites, sundry Muslim groups and members of the mainstream media, who have been relentless in their efforts to discredit the so-called counter-jihad movement (also known as the "Islamophobes") in Germany.

Opinion polls show that growing numbers of ordinary German citizens are worried about the consequences of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Germans are especially concerned about the refusal of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into German society, as well as the emergence of a parallel legal system in Germany based on Islamic Sharia law.

In an effort to reverse this tide of public opinion, the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to regain the initiative by accusing the critics of Islam of engaging in hate speech to try to intimidate the so-called "new right" into silence.

The media campaign has been led by two financially troubled newspapers, the Berliner Zeitung and its sister publication, the Frankfurter Rundschau, as well as Der Spiegel, a leftwing magazine based in Hamburg that has long served as the mouthpiece for German multiculturalism.

In a January 4, 2012 interview with the Berliner Zeitung andFrankfurter Rundschau, Murck said the owners of anti-Islam blogs "have a disturbed relationship to the democratic constitutional state" and often promote "infringements of human rights protected under our constitution."

Murck continued: "I also see evidence of criminal relevance, such as making threats and public invitations to crime." He said criticism of Muslims and Islam constitutes "an attack against the freedom of religion, which is protected by Article 4 of the Basic Law."

The Berliner Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau interview was conducted by Steven Geyer und Jörg Schindler, two journalists and propagandists who have been leading an ongoing effort to shut down a highly popular German-language Internet website called Politically Incorrect (PI), which over the years has grown into a major information resource for Germans concerned about the spread of Islam in their country.

PI's motto reads "Against the Mainstream, Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Against the Islamization of Europe" which encapsulates everything the German left abhors.

The Berliner Zeitung and the Frankfurter Rundschau, for example, have fomented the hysteria by publishing dozens of agitprop articles, some by Mely Kiyak, a first-generation German whose parents were Turkish-Kurdish immigrants. Kiyak, who calls herself a "political pioneer," portrays all critics of Islam as hate-mongers.

One article, entitled, "Politically Incorrect: Vulgar, Uninhibited, Racist," says that, "the Internet portal 'Politically Incorrect' is part of an international network of Islam haters and Muslim stalkers. This is confirmed by research conducted by the Frankfurter Rundschau."

Another article, "PI News: Prototype of the New Right," links criticism of Islam with anti-Semitism: "The 'New Right' has been growing for ten years and has momentum. The blog 'Politically Incorrect' shows what the movement looks like. The director of the Center for Research on Anti-Semitism, Wolfgang Benz, sees parallels to anti-Semitism." Open expressions of anti-Semitism are illegal in post-war Germany; the inference here is that those who criticize Islam are guilty of committing a crime.

Other Berliner Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau articles are entitled: "Politically Incorrect: Where the Internet Stinks;" "Rightwing Populists: United in their Hatred of Muslims," and "Politically Correct Hatred."

A frenzied article, "Politically Incorrect: Inside the Network of Islam Haters," asserts: "PI is far more than a harmless website. It is rather a highly conspiratorial organization that works to demonize an entire faith community. It plays a vital role in an international network of those who hate Islam. It provides racists and glorifiers of violence who share the world view of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik with a forum."

Spiegel magazine, sifting through a stock of more than 10,000 private emails that were stolen from PI, published an article, "Politically Incorrect Closely Knit to Far Right Scene," in which it asserted that the people behind PI are undemocratic and pose a threat to the German constitutional order.

Another article, "Germany's Anti-Muslim Scene: Authorities Debate Surveillance of Islamophobes," asserts that right-wing populism is a new form of extremism: "There are concerns that the anti-Muslim scene is becoming increasingly dangerous. In essence, the question is whether the hatred of Muslims is enough to endanger freedom of religion and international understanding, or whether it is a radical but legitimate expression of opinion by individual authors within the limits of the constitution."

In any event, Spiegel magazine has worked hard to portray all critics of Islam as belonging to the "far right" even though opinion polls overwhelmingly show that voters from across the political spectrum are concerned about the spread of Islam in Germany.

An opinion survey called "Perception and Acceptance of Religious Diversity," conducted by the sociology department of the University of Münster in partnership with the prestigious TNS Emnid political polling firm, shows that the majority of Germans disagree with a statement by German President Christian Wulff, alleging that Islam "belongs in Germany" because of the four million Muslims who now live there. Germany has Western Europe's second-biggest Islamic population after France, with Turks the single biggest minority.

The study shows that only 34% of the West Germans and 26% of the East Germans have a positive view of Muslims. Fewer than 5% of the Germans think Islam is a tolerant religion, and only 30% say they approve of the building of mosques. The number of Germans who approve of the building of minarets or the introduction of Muslim holidays is even lower.

Fewer than 10% of the West Germans and 5% of the East Germans say that Islam is a peaceful religion. More than 40% of Germans believe that the practice of Islam should be vigorously restricted.

Only 20% of the Germans believe that Islam is suitable for the Western world. Significantly, more than 80% of the Germans agree with the statement "that Muslims must adapt to our culture." More than one million immigrants living permanently in Germany cannot speak German.

Another survey, "Global Views on Immigration," conducted by the London-based Ipsos global research firm, found that more than half the Germans believe "there are too many immigrants" in their country.

In response to the polling question "Would you say that immigration has generally had a positive or negative impact?" 54% of the Germans said the impact has been negative. Nearly 60% of the Germans agree with the survey statement: "Immigration has placed too much pressure on public services" in Germany.

Another report, "Muslim-Western Tensions Persist," published by the Washington, DC-based Pew Research Center, states that 61% of the Germans believe their relations with Muslims are bad. The poll also shows that 72% of the Germans believe Muslims in their countries do not want to integrate; and that 79% of the Germans believe Islam is "the most violent" religion. More than two-thirds of the Germans are worried about Islamic extremists in their country.

A separate poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project states that 71% of the Germans believe Islamic veils should be banned in public, including in schools, hospitals and government offices.

Another survey, published by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think-tank linked to the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), found that 55% of the Germans believe that Arabs are "unpleasant," and over 33% believe the country is being "overrun" by immigrants. The study also noted that "far-right attitudes" are not isolated at the extremes of German society, but to a large degree are "at the center of it."

These surveys clearly and consistently show that most Germans are worried about the impact that Muslim immigration is having on their daily lives.

In a country stifled by decades of political correctness, Politically Incorrect has been giving a voice to millions of frustrated Germans who see the harm being wrought by the cult of multiculturalism. But Germany's establishment now seems determined to use all means at its disposal to silence free speech in the nation.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2752/germany-silence-islam-criticism

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

CAIR's Manipulation Tactics in Tampa

by IPT News

As news of a terrorist plot by a radical Islamist in Tampa emerged Monday, the propaganda machine that is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) launched into action, repeating its mantra of accusations against the FBI and offering excuses for the plotter. It's a common pattern for an organization that positions itself between the public, government, and terrorist suspects, trying to control dialogue about Islamist terrorism suspects and cynically manipulating its own relationship with the government.

Local media played into CAIR's plan, with the Tampa and St. Petersburg daily newspapers and television affiliates turning to the group for reaction, despite its own tainted record.

Early responses to Sami Osmakac's plot from two of CAIR's non-Florida representatives showed a disdain for the government's arrest of another "innocent" Muslim suspect.

Executive Director of CAIR San Francisco Zahra Billoo, stated that she was "wondering how much of the thwarted terror plot in Florida was seeded by the FBI, [a]ppreciating that even the MSM mentioned the informants." Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR-Michigan, released a tweet saying, "It is not the job of civil rights groups to be commending the FBI on their use of informants, given the FBI's history."

CAIR's Tampa Executive Director Hassan Shibly, both cast doubt on the government and tried to pretend violence doesn't exist in radical Islamist ideologies.

"The weapons and explosives were provided by the government. Was he just a troubled individual, or did he pose a real threat?" Shibly asked Monday. He backed off Tuesday, saying "It doesn't look like something we would pursue" in part because the Muslim community alerted authorities in the first place.

He also cast the role of the Muslim community as critical, while claiming that the community's trust was violated by the actions of the government. "I mean he seemed to be a disturbed individual. He was actually an outcast from the Muslim community. He was banned from several of the mosques and it was the mosque that brought him to the attention of the FBI," Shibly said in an interview with the local Fox News outlet, in contradiction to the criminal complaint that shows an informant tipped off the government. He likewise expressed "concern about a perception of entrapment," even while saying that Osmakac was "no friend or supporter of the Muslim community."

"I think the fear at the point is that he was just mentally disturbed...I think that community members hoped that by reporting him, he could get the proper assistance," Shibly told an interviewer.

Apart from casting doubt on whether Osmakac was truly a threat, Shibly also repeated the mantra that religion should be ignored as a factor in the radicalization the terrorism suspect. When asked about Osmakac's statement that he wanted his death to be in an Islamic way, Shibly parried and claimed Osmakac had nothing to do with Islam.

"For me it's meaningless. It is very disturbing you know [the suspect's statement] "to die in an Islamic way," Shibly told FOX Tampa Bay. "Again, that is completely meaningless for me as a Muslim. You know Islam teaches peace and justice. It does not teach wanton violence which is what this guy was allegedly promoting."

The affiliate did not push back when Shibly expressed concerns over whether the FBI "edged on" Osmakac into a violent plot he otherwise would not have pursued. It's a standard CAIR line used to undermine public confidence in a terror-prosecution even though it has never held up in court. (For more on Shibly, click here.)

Other cases reflect the usual pattern of manipulation by CAIR.

Billoo, who immediately cast doubt on the Tampa case, reacted to the December 2010 arrest of a man who wanted to blow up a Portland Christmas tree lighting event by accusing the FBI of exaggerating the threat because it was "looking for a sensational story." Last fall, CAIR-Michigan chief Dawud Walid downplayed an arrest in an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington because a Drug Enforcement Administration informant played a key role. "If Holder hadn't announced so many 'foiled' plots that were really FBI provocateur led, I'd be more inclined to believe this #Iran plot biz," Walid said in a Twitter post.

Deadline pressure is never easy and reporters know that CAIR rarely turn away a microphone or a chance at appearing in the newspaper. But it's mystifying to see reporters routinely ignore CAIR's duplicity about law enforcement support, coupled with its own documented history in a terrorist-financing network, to accept the group's talking points so blindly.

IPT News

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3381/cair-manipulation-tactics-in-tampa

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

MI Chief: Iran, Hezbollah Providing Assad with Weaponry

by Yaakov Katz

Iran and Hezbollah are actively assisting Syrian President Bashar Assad and providing him with weaponry as part of an effort to ensure that he survives in face of growing resistance and protests, head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said on Wednesday.

Kochavi spoke at the graduation ceremony for IDF intelligence officers.

“The radical axis is trying to retain its power and as time passes, Iran and Hezbollah increase their efforts to help the Assad regime survive by providing intelligence, weaponry, and other capabilities- to the point where they are actively involved,” Kochavi said.

The IDF intelligence chief said it was possible that in the long term the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East would have a positive outcome but in the immediate term “the dangers are increasing.”

Kochavi's comments came a day after Turkish customs officials intercepted four trucks suspected of carrying military equipment from Iran to Syria.

The governor of Kilis province said the trucks were confiscated at the Oncupinar border crossing into Syria after police received information about their cargo, according to Dogan news agency.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Yaakov Katz

Source: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=253200

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

Assad Accused by Arab League Observer of War Crimes

by Rick Moran

This after the Arab League agreed to continue the observer mission for another week.

But one observer tells it like it is.

Reuters:

The Arab League monitor, Anwar Malek, said he had resigned because the mission was powerless to prevent what he said were the "scenes of horror" he had seen in the restive city of Homs.

"The mission was a farce and the observers have been fooled," the Algerian told Al Jazeera English television. "The regime orchestrated it and fabricated most of what we saw to stop the Arab League from taking action against the regime ...

"The regime isn't committing one war crime but a series of crimes against its people," he added.

Malek's resignation was the latest blow to a mission already criticized for inefficiency and whose members have come under attack this week from both Assad supporters and protesters.

There was no immediate comment on Malek's remarks from the Arab League, which decided Sunday to keep monitors in place at least until they report again on their mission on January 19.

Under the Arab peace plan, Syrian authorities are supposed to stop attacking peaceful protests, withdraw troops and tanks from the streets, free detainees and open a political dialogue.

Meanwhile, Assad made his second appearance in less than week at a rally mostly made up of his Shabihah militia who are largely responsible for executing soldiers who don't shoot at civilians and terrorizing neighborhoods in cities like Homs and Hama.

Assad declared that he will be victorious over foreign "conspirators" who are trying to bring his regime down.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/assad_accused_by_arab_league_observer_of_war_crimes.html

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

Another Iranian Nuke Scientist Assassinated

by Rick Moran

The official Iranian news agency Fars is calling it a "terrorist attack" and are accusing Israel and the US of carrying out the assassination of an Iranian nuke scientist.

The scientist was identified as Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a supervisor at the main enrichment facility at Nantanz. And the method was, if not sophisticated, certainly it was well thought out and executed.

New York Times:

At a time of growing tension over its nuclear program and mounting belligerence toward the West, Iran reported on Wednesday that an Iranian nuclear scientist died in what was termed a "terrorist bomb blast" in northern Tehran when an unidentified motorcyclist attached a magnetic explosive device to his car.

It was the fourth such attack reported in two years and, as after the previous incidents, Iranian officials indicated that they believed the United States and Israel were responsible. News photographs from the scene in northern Tehran showed a car draped in a pale blue tarp being lifted onto a truck. A driver who acted as a bodyguard was also killed, news reports said.

Photographs published by the IRNA news agency showed what it said was the body of the scientist still inside the car. The head covered with a white cloth.

The scientist was identified as Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, 32, a professor at Tehran's technical university, and a department supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility - one of two known sites where Western leaders suspect Iranian scientists are advancing toward the creation of a nuclear weapon.

It is not beyond the realm of the impossible that this assassination is the result of an internal dispute between factions - or even a domestic group that is opposed to Iran building a nuke.

Four killings in two years and really, not one of them key individuals in Iran's nuke program. It would seem that if Israel and/or the US is responsible, the goal is not to degrade Iranian techincal ability but rather intimidation of scientists. The dead supervisor was traveling with a bodyguard - significant in and of itself.

It must be unnerving to be a scientist working on the Iranian bomb at this point.

Kerry Patton adds:

Any occupation dealing with Iran's nuclear program comes with great risks. Two years ago, nuclear scientist Massoud Ali Mohammadi was assassinated by a terrorist bomb attack. A botched bomb attack against Iran's head of their Atomic Energy Organization, Fereidoun Abbassi Davani, occurred in 2010 as well.

We have heard of "mysterious" explosions in Iran. One such explosion recently killed Brigadier General Hassan Moqaddam along with sixteen others. Such activities could be why Iran continues to threaten closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz should not be the greatest concern for Iran. Domestically, they are seeing more and more of their own nuclear professionals killed. While these unique targeted killings may or may not be linked to any foreign state, Iran has proven to have a grave weakness in domestic security.

As GOP candidate Rick Santorum had stated time and again, the United States missed a great opportunity to change Iran back in 2009. During the 2009 Iranian elections, a mass pro-democracy movement later to be known as the Green Movement fought tirelessly to overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime. They cried out for help, yet the Obama administration turned their backs.

During a time when joint military strategic maneuvers are about to commence for the world's largest military exercise consisting of U.S. and Israeli forces, we are preparing for war. Yet a war against Iran can be prevented. This has been proven over the last couple of years.

The proof is in the pudding. Iranians risked their own lives to turn the Shiite state into a pro-democratic one back in 2009. Many were killed, and more were imprisoned. Numerous Iranian elites have been assassinated recently, which demonstrates internal security vulnerabilities. What this mean is that with pro-democratic Iranians willing to engage in an internal uprising supported by a handful of foreign states, enough espionage, sabotage, and chaos might turn the tables in Iran.

The United States does not need to engage in another war, but we do need to suppress Iran. Identifying Iran's weaknesses and capitalizing on those weaknesses will prevent a huge U.S.-led military action. As General George S. Patton once said, "No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country."

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/another_iranian_nuke_scientist_assassinated.html

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

To Kill a Military

by Daniel Greenfield

In George Soros’ book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy,” he writes that in the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, the victory would go to the former over the latter. “Although the West has material superiority, Islam will prevail because it has a major competitive advantage: it is not afraid of death.”

Fear of death is certainly one element in Obama’s new skeletal program of defense cuts, which stresses drones and “cyberwarfare” while cutting as many as a hundred thousand troops. Drones and cyberwarriors don’t die or get taken prisoner. They can take out the occasional target with no human cost involved. But they are also impotent in any larger conflict. They can enable us to take out the occasional Al-Qaeda terrorist or slow down Iran’s nuclear program, but they are no match for an outright invasion.

Democratic administrations have a history of favoring these types of bloodless wars that rely on extensive bombardment without exposing troops to any casualties. But cruise missiles and bombing raids can only do so much. The Clinton administration’s bombing of Iraqi targets produced no results. Nor will drones and cyberattacks be effective in stopping any major moves by North Korea or Iran.

The larger element behind the cuts is the Democratic Party’s discomfort with a large standing army. To the left having a sizable military creates the temptation to use it and the only way to check that temptation is to dismantle and weaken it as much as possible. The half trillion in cuts, which will affect everything from next generation fighter jets to troop numbers, will certainly do that. Even after this administration has gone it will have left behind the same legacy of decay and neglect that the Clinton administration did.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has boasted that over the next four years the cuts in defense spending would be “as rapid as any we experienced after Vietnam or after the Cold War​.” But that isn’t anything to boast about. Both sets of cuts had disastrous long term consequences for military preparedness.

Defenders of the cuts have pointed to how much defense spending has increased during the War on Terror, but these increases were necessary not only due to the conflict, but to compensate for drastic cuts carried out during the Clinton administration. Rearmament after a period of disarmament is more expensive than maintaining consistent but sustainable preparedness just as maintaining a car is cheaper than letting it go to rust in your front yard and then trying to fix it ten years later when you suddenly need a ride. The Obama administration’s defense cuts will translate into more spending as a future administration finds itself rebuilding the military that Obama’s people junked.

Defense spending still represents less than 5 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. That is about half of what it was at the height of the Cold War. Obama is trying to push it back down to the 3 percent that it was under the Clinton administration, which might be more defensible if he had managed to resolve any of the two wars he inherited so that future military intervention became an unlikely prospect. But instead his pullouts in Iraq and Afghanistan have only laid the ground for future conflicts. On top of that Obama began an entirely new conflict in Libya with unknown implications for the future, and failed to neuter the threats from North Korea and Iran.

The Clinton administration’s cuts were mildly defensible, coming as they did in a period when Americans could reasonably believe that there were no major conflicts lingering on the horizon. But no such evasion of responsibility is possible today even as the old Clinton hands are up to their old tricks while the War on Terror remains unresolved. The rose-colored glasses have been stomped underfoot in the rush to escape the Pentagon on September 11. Not even the most irresponsible foreign policy experts believes that we are entering a time of peace, and, therefore, we clearly cannot afford the luxury of unilateral disarmament.

To put the numbers into perspective, the fastest growing part of the budget isn’t defense spending, it’s interest on the national debt. And the interest alone is expected to pass 3 percent of GDP by 2016. If Obama is reelected then by the end of his term the interest on the national debt will cost more than national defense will. We will not have a military capable of reacting to any threats against the United States, but at the least the bulk of those threats will be coming from debt collectors.

The cruelest role is being played by Soros’s Center for American Progress in championing health care cuts for military personnel. Their attacks on the military’s Tricare benefits point to the superior health care benefits for military personnel, both active and retired, over those of civilian Federal employees. But their arguments ignore the larger picture.

There are the unquestionably superior sacrifices made by military personnel in their service, which include serious risk to life and limb. A risk not suffered by bureaucrats at the EPA or the EEOC or any of the other useless leftist bureaucratic entities sucking up taxpayer money and accounting for the 2,500 lawyers hired by the government every year. But civilian federal employees also enjoy better salaries than their military counterparts.

An E1 private in the army will earn 17, 611 dollars. That’s less than welfare payments are in some states. A Second Lieutenant will earn 33,408 dollars. This is well below even the starting salaries for many federal employees which have increased significantly under the Obama administration. The average federal employee has a 75,000 dollar salary. Nearly twenty thousand more than the average military salary. Health care and housing benefits for the military help make life viable for military personnel and their families living on salaries that a parasitic EPA lawyer helping to destroy the economy wouldn’t even sneeze at.

Even while the Obama administration is making drastic cuts to the military, it has plowed more money into the welfare state than ever. Means-tested welfare spending increased to 910 billion dollars in 2011 amounting to a 50 percent increase over Bush administration budgets. That’s 200 billion dollars more than the Department of Defense budget.

These numbers suggest that the Obama administration would rather have potential soldiers on welfare than serving in the armed forces. And that isn’t far from the truth. Welfare recipients are dependent on the Democratic Party while the military tends to lean to the right. Increasing the welfare rolls and decreasing the rolls of the armed forces is another way to increase the voting base for the Democratic Party.

From any angle the proposed military cuts are dangerously irresponsible and as long as the Obama administration refuses to outline a serious defense policy or to cut other forms of spending, then it has no business wrecking the military and betraying the men and women who, unlike it, have fought for this country.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/11/obamas-legacy-military-destruction/

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

Boko Haram Rapidly Infiltrating Nigerian Intelligence

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

The Christian community in Nigeria was again the target of terrorist attacks planned by the Islamist group, Boko Haram. A spokesperson for the Islamist group also issued an ultimatum to Christians to leave the North of Nigeria, dominated by Muslims, or otherwise be killed. Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan already declared a state of emergency, whereas the Nigerian Ministry of Information stated that all Nigerians should unite to confront the "evil" of Boko Haram.

Nigerian authorities agree on saying that Boko Haram has a clear strategy, a well defined leadership and an increasing hoard of funds and technical support thanks to its recently established links with Al-Qaeda. Further, so far, any attempt of the Nigerian security forces to track down the leadership of Boko Haram has also been frustrated over easiness about crossing the borders it has with it neighbors, Niger, Chad and Cameroon where, allegedly, Boko Haram has training camps.

International analyst on Nigeria, Jean-Christophe Servant, points out that Boko Haram is composed of several elements of the Nigerian society. Among the militants are apparently not only Islamists, but desperate young people earning less than two dollars a month and who have no hope for the future; criminals who want to destabilize the central government, and dismissed personnel from the Nigerian army. According to Servant, the presence of Nigerian former soldiers would explain Boko Haram's use of sophisticated weaponry and explosives. Servant also states, however, that the Nigerian intelligence does not have any clear information about the leadership of the group or on its power structure.

The Nigerian paper Vanguard writes that so far, little is known about the group, or even its real name: evidently Boko Haram (literally, "Western Education is a Sin") has no specific name for itself, just many names attributed to it by local people. "If their name is uncertain, however, their mission appears clear enough: to overthrow the Nigerian state, impose an extreme interpretation of Islamic law and abolish what they term Western-style education," Vanguard wrote.

For what is concern about the group's leadership, the Nigerian paper mentions that after the death in 2009 of Boko Haram's historical leader, Mohammed Yusuf, the Islamist movement allegedly decentralized its leadership. Boko Haram, therefore, appears to have a loose structure, with its leaders regionalized. Boko Haram's main problem at the moment, according to Vanguard, is to find a charismatic leader. The group, however, is stronger than ever and it seems to have infiltrated Nigerian security agencies in the country in order to access difficult places.

Former Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, is pessimistic about the Nigerian authority's ability to track down the group. He claims that the government does not even have a strategy. He believes that this generation of Nigerians will have to live under the threat of Boko Haram. "I do not know how to address the issue of Boko Haram," Akinyemi said, adding, "And anybody who tells you that he knows how to address the issue of Boko Haram does not know what he is saying. One of the things people do not realize is one of the three policemen, including an inspector, lost their lives in the Christmas Day bombing in church because the Police had the information that Boko Haram was going to strike on Christmas Day, but they did not know the specific church they were going to strike. So, the police ordered its personnel to form a security cordon around several churches, and this inspector did see this car. He tried to stop [the man driving car], but he would not stop. The civilian security guard of the church also tried to stop him; he would not stop until he detonated the bomb. The only way he could have stopped was when the inspector said stop.He didn't stop and they fired at him. Supposing it turned out that it was the man's breaks that were not functioning or [that] he was late for mass and he just wanted to get in, everybody, the whole Nigeria will come down on the head of that inspector for killing an innocent man. You are asking a man to make a split-second's judgment. So, the inspector was trying to be cautious. He paid with his life and the lives of 34 others. Is Nigeria ready for shoot-on-sight on the suspicion that somebody is a terrorist? Is the press ready for that? Are the civil societies ready for that? That is the question you should ask yourself, not government."

According to him, the Nigerian President should summon a meeting with political leaders from the majority and from the opposition to try to find national unity on a common strategy on how to defeat terrorism. The former Nigerian Minister says there should be a common understanding on the need to track down the leaders of Boko Haram to make sure that party officers and party agents will not attack the government over how to handle security issues. To find Nigerian national unity, the first step should be deciding how handle the Boko Haram problem. In the meantime, there is only Nigeria's media alert on the country's imminent descent into chaos and holy war - with massive oil riches as the prize.

Anna Mahjar-Barducci

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2743/boko-haram-infiltrating-nigerian-intelligence

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

The Other Two-State Solution: India and Pakistan

by Mohshin Habib

The first round of "face-to-face" talks, after a fifteen months interval, between Israel's chief negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho, and his Palestinian counterpart, Saeb Erakat, ended January 3, 2012 in Jordan's capital, Amman, with both positive and skeptical reactions. Jordanian Foreign Minister, Nasser Judeh said, "The two sides expressed their commitment to a two-state solution, [but] we do not want to raise the level of expectations." Washington and the European Union joined in, saying the talks were a "positive development" and "inspiring."

A Palestinian official, however, told Agence France Presse that as the Israeli delegation did not bring up any new element during the discussion, the meeting bought nothing. It is unclear what "new elements" the Palestinians brought up.

We already have a "two state solution": India and Pakistan. But not peace.

The Israel-Arab conflict has never been [a] conventional one. For the Israelis, if they stay in the settlements they will be shot at; if they withdraw from the settlements, they will be shot at. It often seems as if Israel's neighbors look at the entire country as a settlement. Israel has recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, but the popular Hamas and other Palestinian rejectionist groups have yet to fully, or even partially, recognize the state of Israel. The Palestinians will never forget to try to revert to the lines before 1967, in reality just armistice lines where fighting stopped in 1948.

Also, whoever it is -- Palestine or Hamas or Hizballah or Fatah, or the neighboring countries around Israel – they either believe strongly in Islam or, even if they do not, are being educated to hate and kill Jews -- in their schoolbooks, in their summer camps and even in their television shows for children.

Perhaps what is difficult for the West to understand is that the followers of Islam automatically follow some core words from the holy book, the Koran, which first desperately needs to be erased from the views of the Muslims for any real peace in these enclaves. For example, prominently written down in the book is:

• Allah is the enemy of unbelievers [in Islam, unbeliever always means whoever does not believe in Allah - Author's note]. -- Surah 2.98 (means second Surah, verse number 98)
• lay them where ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out... – Surah 2:191
• Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. – Surah 2:216
• O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends are one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. – Surah 5:54
• Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what God and his messenger have forbidden, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. -Surah 9:29
• When you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, and then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. – Surah 47:4
• To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. – Surah 4:74

There are many more orders there is not room to cite here. So how can peace succeed if Muslims stick to these orders and advice? An accord is needed not only politically; it has also to be a permanent cultural and religious accord, although that is most likely impossible because of the antagonistic sentiment.

Above everything, Israel desperately needs a strong hand. The world has the perception that Israel has a plan to attack Iran preemptively, to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons it is trying to make. The U.S is not warm enough with the current leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, but the U.S. has bosom friends in Middle East. If any Islamic state gets attacked by any power, it will first launch some objects toward the Israeli sky, the way Saddam Hossain did with Scud missiles. And if Iran has any conflict against the U.S. or any Western power, it will try to throw Shabab-3, Ghadr-1 or Sajjil missiles with chemical weapons toward the same sky. The reality is, if Israel wants to keep her back unbroken, she must have to act against Iranian nukes and be always vigilant about the forces that surround her.

Of course most people would prefer to solve conflicts with talks, but if Iran has nukes, no talks will save Israel from huge bloodshed again, and the disappearance of a nation state. The Middle-East countries that are neighbors to Israel produce megalomaniac leaderships like Iran's Ahmedinejad's.

Any conventional peace process is not helpful for Israel any more than it is for India or Pakistan. The two state solution simply does not resolve animosities the way people dreaming of it like to fancy it does.

Israel needs some extra-ordinary effort, if the world leaders can present her with one – but acting responsibly does not now look hopeful. Otherwise, for the sake of her survival, Israel should act with her capability against all possible dangers ahead.

Mohshin Habib

Source: http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2739/two-state-solution-india-pakistan

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