Saturday, July 30, 2016

A Palestinian fiction - Gilad Sharon

by Gilad Sharon

Hat tip: Jean-Charles Bensoussan

The Palestinians hitched a ride on the back of Zionism. Many of them came here in the wake of the Zionists, to make a living from them

The idea behind the new bill allowing for the expulsion of a member of Knesset from the parliament is to limit an MK’s public expressions of identification with Palestinian nationalism and its violent manifestations. But the bill also raises a more basic question: Is Palestinian nationalism real or is it a fiction whose sole aim is to wipe us off the face of the Earth? The fact that the question affects us directly requires that we examine it closely. The fundamental aspiration, the ultimate dream, of every national movement is a state of its own. A little bigger, a little smaller – it doesn’t matter, just as long as it’s their own independent state. By definition, the purpose of a national movement is to work to realize that dream.

A quick review of Palestinian activities over the past hundred years reveals no evidence of any efforts of that sort. In Zionism’s early decades, there was no such thing as a Palestinian nation. At most, the Palestinians were a vestige of some pan-Arab nation, which also turned out to be an oriental fairy tale (pan-Arabism breathed its last with the death of Nasser).

Until the UN Partition Plan in 1947, Zionism devoted all its energy to creating national institutions and making preparations for the establishment of a state.

What were the Palestinians doing during that time? Were they also busy preparing for the founding of their state? No. Their efforts were directed entirely toward preventing the founding of ours.

Had they accepted the Partition Plan, they would now have a state the same age as Israel. All the territory they are demanding today – and more – would already belong to them, and there wouldn’t be a single Palestinian refugee. But they didn’t even consider that option. As far as they were concerned, their rejection of the plan was a foregone conclusion.

Why? Because they didn’t aspire to a state of their own. All they wanted was to thwart the establishment of ours.

Almost 70 years have elapsed, and there’s been no change in Palestinian aspirations. In the 19 years between the War of Independence and the Six Day War, they never established a state. In fact, Article 24 of the first Palestinian National Charter (the one they’d like to forget), published in east Jerusalem in 1964, states that the Palestine Liberation Organization “does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank... [or] on the Gaza Strip.”

That was three years before the Six Day War. How is it that in their founding charter, the Palestinians declared they had no wish to rule over the very same land they are now demanding? The reason is that the results of the Six Day War are the pretext, not the cause, of Palestinian violence. That was here long before the war. It’s also the reason why Ehud Barak failed to reach an agreement with Yasser Arafat, and why Ehud Olmert failed to reach an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, and why it will never be possible to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

Is a nation whose members’ fondest dream is to be granted an identity card by the enemy really a nation? There are only three Muslim nations in the region: the Egyptians, the Persians, and the Turks.

All the rest are tribes at best. The Palestinians hitched a ride on the back of Zionism. Many of them came here in the wake of the Zionists, to make a living from them. Their spurious nationality is a by-product of Zionism. It wouldn’t have been invented if it weren’t for Zionism, and couldn’t survive without it.

When it comes right down to it, we have to do what’s best for us. That means not intermingling with them and not trusting them, because what matters to them is not their own benefit, but our destruction.

Translated by Sara Kitai.

Gilad Sharon


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Thinking of Voting for Hillary? - Better Watch "Clinton Cash" first - Peter Schweizer/Breitbart

by Peter Schweizer/Breitbart

Be informed!

Clinton Cash: Documentary on Hillary and Bill Clinton Released on Breitbart News’ Website

Based on Peter Schweizer’s book, the documentary traces how the Clintons amassed their reported net worth of over $150 million after leaving the White House. It premiered on Breitbart Saturday and is mind-boggling.

Peter Schweizer/Breitbart


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

'What if the third Lebanon war breaks out tomorrow?' - Nadav Shragai

by Nadav Shragai

Ten years after the Second Lebanon War, top Israeli security officials try to identify the shortfalls of that calamitous war and draw conclusions for the next confrontation, which some view as inevitable • Everyone agrees: The next war must be shorter.

Nadav Shragai


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Want to know Hillary's only qualification to be president? - J. Marsolo

by J. Marsolo

This is the first time that a presidential candidate has absolutely nothing to  offer. There is nothing in her background to suggest she is fit to be president.

The Hillary strategy to win is to destroy Donald Trump.  This was the theme of the convention, with each speaker attacking Trump.  Doug Schoen, who has run many Democrat campaigns, said on Fox that Hillary will spend two billion dollars in negative ads.

Hillary has nothing positive to offer.  Her record as secretary of state is a failure, from supporting the killing of Gaddafi, which caused Libya to descend into anarchy and become a haven for ISIS, to failing to provide the requested security at Benghazi, then doing nothing on the day of the attack and lying about its cause.  She actually, without shame, told the mother of Sean Smith that the attack was cause by a video.  This alone should be enough to disqualify and defeat her.  She should have been indicted for lying about the emails and endangering national security, but the director of the FBI gave her a pass.  Now we learn that the DNC worked with her to defeat Bernie so she could win.

Her record as a senator is that she voted for the Iraq War, which she now is trying to explain away.

Her record as first lady is a failed plan to have government run health care, scandal in firing the White House travel office workers to give the jobs to her friends, having FBI records of political opponents, covering up the sexual harassment by her husband, selling pardons, hiding billing records to hide her role in Whitewater, and generally lying about anything and everything.

Since 2000 she has used her political persona to amass $200 million in speaking fees, book deals, and whatever.
Her record as the governor’s wife in Arkansas was basically to use the governor’s office to steer business to the Rose Law Firm, and the sordid affairs of Whitewater.  Web Howell went to jail, Jim McDougall went to jail, Vince Foster killed himself, but Hillary keeps on making money.

Her record as an attorney was that she was fired from the Watergate Committee for ethics violation.  Dick Morris says she failed the D.C. bar exam.

As a law student, she associated with Saul Alinsky and the Black Panthers.

This is the first time that a presidential candidate has absolutely nothing to  offer. There is nothing in her background to suggest she is fit to be president.

At the convention the best that anyone could say, and the highpoint of the convention, is that she is a mother and a grandmother.

Thus we have candidate Hillary who has nothing to offer except she has a daughter and two grandchildren, and was not indicted.

So she will attack Trump every day.  Too bad she and Obama did not bring this focus and determination in fighting terrorism.

J. Marsolo


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Time For Israel To Walk Away From US Aid - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

...And better serve the country's security interests in the process.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

On Monday, acting head of the National Security Council Yaakov Nagel will sit down with his US counterpart, Susan Rice, and try to conclude negotiations about a new, multi-year defense assistance package.
We must all hope that he fails.

No clear Israeli interest will be advanced by concluding the aid deal presently on the table. 

Indeed, the deal now being discussed will cause Israel massive, long-term economic and strategic damage. This is true for a number of reasons.

First, there is the issue of the deal’s impact on Israel’s military industries, which are the backbone of Israel’s strategic independence.

Under the current defense package, which is set to expire next year, a quarter of the US aid Israel receives is converted to shekels and spent domestically. 

Reportedly, the deal now under negotiation will bar Israel from using any of the funds domestically.

The implications for our military industries are dire. Not only will thousands of Israelis lose their jobs. Israel’s capacity to develop its own weapons systems will be dangerously diminished.

Then there is the problem of joint projects.

Today, Israel receives additional US funds to develop joint projects, including the Iron Dome and David’s Sling short range missile and rocket defense programs. These programs were undertaken in response to threats that weren’t foreseen when the current deal was negotiated a decade ago.

According to reports, the deal now being negotiated denies Israel and the US the ability to fund jointly new projects or to provide supplemental funding for existing projects. All funding for all projects will be covered by the lump sum that is currently being negotiated.

Not only does this preclude new projects, it prevents Congress from exercising oversight over administration funding of existing joint projects with Israel. President Barack Obama has consistently tried to slash funding of missile defense programs, only to be overridden by Congress. Under the deal now on the table, Congress will be denied the power to override a hostile administration.

Given the obvious problems with the aid program currently being proposed by the Obama administration, there’s little wonder that until now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly stated that if necessary, Israel is ready to wait for the next administration. Some argue that Netanyahu’s apparent newfound interest in concluding negotiations on Obama’s terms owes to his fear that this is the best offer Israel is likely to get. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for various reasons, it is argued, will be less likely to offer significant increases in US military assistance.

Assuming this is accurate, the question becomes whether Israel has an interest in the assistance at all.

And so we come to the F-35.

For Israel, to a significant degree, the aid package on offer is about the F-35, the US’s fifth generation fighter, otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

Last month Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and IAF Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen Tal Kelman flew to Texas to ceremonially “take possession” of Israel’s first two F-35s. Both aircraft are set to be delivered to Israel in December.

To date, the IAF has purchased 33 F-35s – all with US aid money. The IAF wants to purchase a total of 75 F-35s, which are supposed to replace the F-16s and the F-15s that the IAF currently fields.

As Liberman made clear during his visit, whether Israel purchases them or not is entirely dependent on the aid deal.

We should not take them. We should walk away.

And we should walk away even if we receive nothing in exchange for the planes we reject.

The F-35 is a disaster of epic proportions, for the US first and foremost. If Israel agrees to base its next generation fighters on the F-35, it will be a disaster for us as well. Although it is late in the game, we need to cut our losses.

To date, the F-35 has cost the US $400 billion.

That is twice what it was supposed to cost. The project is already four years behind schedule and still in development. It won’t be operational until May 2018 – at the earliest.

The F-35 is a jet that was developed by a committee and tasked with doing everything. So it isn’t surprising that it doesn’t work. In February, J. Michael Gilmore, the director of the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation office, submitted a scathing report to Congress on the F-35 program.

It is worth going through just a few of his findings.

The F-35’s calling card is its stealth capacity.

According to the engineers at Lockheed Martin, the JSF is supposed to be all-but-invisible to radar systems. Its stealth system is supposed to be far superior to the stealth capabilities of its third generation predecessors.

But at present, its stealth systems do not work, and it is unclear whether they will ever work as planned.

First there is the problem with the JSF’s cooling systems. The JSF is too hot. To prevent its single engine from melting down in flight, pilots are forced to open its weapons bays at high speeds and altitudes every 10 minutes. When the weapons bays are open, the stealth systems do not work.

Then there is the software. The F-35 is considered one big flying computer. It uses over 20 million lines of computer code. These codes are supposed to make it the most maneuverable and stealthy aircraft in history. The problem is that the codes are defective. The software programs that enable the plane to fly, maneuver, and engage in combat are all defective. So are the software programs that control the plane’s stealth capabilities.

And fixing them is not a simple process.

The fixed software systems can’t simply be attached to existing hardware – or to existing planes. The planes themselves have to be rebuilt to adjust to the new software. So the models that have already been produced, including the two F-35s that are set for delivery in December, will all have to be rebuilt before they will be combat ready.

And as a panel of US defense and aviation experts that convened in late February following the publication of Gilmore’s report noted, that too will take time and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Another major problem is that the F-35’s nerve center is dysfunctional and there is no clear path to fixing it. The F-35 is controlled by the Autonomic Logistics Information System. The ALIS is a central computer system, located in the US.

All F-35s all over the world will be required to log into the ALIS system to upload computer files after each flight and to check flight readiness. The ALIS is supposed to identify broken parts and help speed up repairs and handle mission data uploads.

ALIS has the capacity to prevent F-35s from taking off. ALIS can lock out pilots and ground crews if it sees danger. If this happens, maintenance technicians have to convince the computer that they either dealt with the issues the computer identified or that it was a false alarm.

Dan Grazier, a member of that panel, whose deliberations were reported by This Week, warned that this power renders the entire F-35 fleet vulnerable to hackers. If someone were able to convince the computer that something was wrong across the fleet, they might be able to keep all the F-35s grounded. Although the damage wouldn’t be permanent, it could continue long enough to cause the US or an ally to lose a battle or fail a mission.

For Israel, this vulnerability is prohibitive even if ALIS is ever made to work. The significance of ALIS control over all F-35s worldwide is that the US – and anyone able to hack the US system – will control the IAF. It will operate at the pleasure of the US government, and those able to hack US computers. They will be able to ground IAF planes whenever they wish.

This critical problem was acknowledged obliquely by Lt.-Col. Yotam, the commander of Israel’s first F-35 or Adir squadron, in an interview with Israel Defense in April.

Lt.-Col. Yotam said, “The maintenance concept of the Adir is based on international management and logistics in terms of spare parts and maintenance echelons.”

Israeli experts note that although in theory Israel will be able to crack the ALIS code and override it, it will take years to develop such a capacity. In the meantime, the IAF will become a contract employee of the US government whose operation is subject to US approval on a flight by flight basis.

The US Air Force, Marines and Navy are all trying to figure out how to deal with the deficiencies of the F-35. There is a vague hope that the US will develop a different fifth generation fighter.

More F-18s and A-10s will likely be ordered. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work told Fighting Global that he foresees using the current batch of F-15s into the 2040s. In other words, the US Air Force will deploy 70-year-old planes alongside the defective F-35s.

This, of course, is a disaster for the US. And if Israel goes ahead with the F-35 project it will be an even bigger disaster for us.

Back when the Pentagon convinced the Shamir government to scrap the Lavi project and purchase the F-16, the argument that won the day was economic. The Lavi was simply too expensive.

Today, both economics and strategic arguments indicate that the opposite is the case, even if walking away involves ending US military aid.

If Israel cuts its losses and begins to develop a fifth generation jet fighter that meets its own specific needs, rather than one designed by a committee to meet other countries’ needs poorly, it will end up both far safer and far more prosperous than if it goes ahead with the F-35 project. It will produce a better plane, better suited for Israeli defense needs, and simultaneously stimulate the growth of Israeli military industries, providing jobs for thousands of Israelis.

If Israel walks away from the military assistance package currently under discussion, it will be in a position to sign joint development deals with the US and other governments on a project by project basis and so ensure that we develop the weapons systems we need, not the ones the US thinks we should have, as we need them. Just as India is investing billions of dollars in joint projects with Israel, so will the US in the future.

It is far from clear that the US can afford its $400b. white elephant. It is abundantly clear that Israel cannot afford it.

Whether or not a Trump or Clinton administration will be more forthcoming is really beside the point. The point is that the US aid deal is really a deal for Lockheed Martin, not for Israel. And we need to say no.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Racially Incorrect Facts on Slavery: African Slave Traders - Jack Kerwick

by Jack Kerwick

The black roots of African slavery.

Ask yourself this: In all of the gazillions of lectures and tirades (there have, as to date, been no genuine conversations) on slavery, have you ever heard of the names of John Currantee and Ephraim Robin John? 

Such names—and there are many, many more—belong to a racially incorrect history of slavery, an historical account that threatens to rip asunder the ideological foundations of the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC), or Big Racism.

For centuries and centuries, courtesy of both Arabs and its indigenous peoples, slavery was endemic throughout the continent of Africa. Contrary to what contemporary mythical portraits like Roots would have us think, when Europeans began enslaving Africans in the 16th century, they—unlike Arabs—would not invade villages to obtain slaves. Rather, they would have to trade with the African flesh peddlers.

John Currantee, of the Fante people, was one such “caboceer” or trader. Ephraim Robin John, who the Europeans called “King George,” was another.  The latter was the leader of the Efik people.  Both had reputations for being particularly “canny and ruthless dealers” of human beings.  Both were representative of African slave traders in two respects: They could communicate in several European and African languages, and they exploited the divisions between the Dutch, the English, and the French to maximize their profits.
These African traders invariably hailed from the most powerful tribes, tribes that would prey upon and conquer weaker peoples—who they would then sell off across the Atlantic.  About 50 percent of all such enslaved Africans were prisoners of war.  Roughly 30 percent were criminals or in debt.  The 20 remaining percent consisted of those who African slave traders would kidnap.

Yet the enslavers exerted as well considerable power over their European partners, for in addition to getting the price that they wanted for the product that they were peddling, these black merchants of black bodies would also compel Europeans to pay “gifts” or “customs fees” (“dashee”).

In The Fante and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, Rebecca Shumway writes that “in the very territory where the majority of fortified European castles were built, giving the appearance of European control, the Africans residing under those structures were actually exercising greater control over trade than was typical for coastal West Africa in this period.”  The Fante, as one reviewer aptly put it, “maintain[ed] the upper hand in their dealings with Europeans.”

As an indication of just how wide of the mark is the popular notion that whites “stole” Africans from their homes, it is worth noting that the British government, in order to strengthen their trading partnerships with Africans, even invited the sons of African slave traders to come to England so as to study English! Moreover, friendships developed between some European and African dealers.

The enslavement of Africans by Europeans was made possible by the fact that Africans first enslaved—and then sold—Africans to these Europeans.  Nor is it the case, as Big Racism would like for us to believe, that Europeans were uniquely cruel to their captives.  In point of fact, African slave traders not infrequently subjected those who they kidnapped to treatment that had few peers anywhere as far as mercilessness and savagery are concerned.

Dr. Alexander Falconbridge was a European who served as a surgeon aboard multiple slave ships that sailed from West Africa to the Caribbean during the last quarter of the 18th century.  He would eventually become an abolitionist.  In 1788, he supplied the world with an all too rare account of the African participation in the slave trade.

Since “the black traders” take “extreme care” “to prevent the Europeans from gaining any intelligence” regarding the logistics involved in capturing slaves, Falconbridge drew his impressions—namely, that many, if not most, of the latter were abducted—from what he did observe directly as well as from the testimony of those Africans who had been captured.

One black captive, a man, told Falconbridge that he had been invited to drink with traders. As he proceeded to walk away, they seized him.  He broke free, but only to be hunted down by a “large dog” that “compelled him to submit.”  Dogs were used with regularity by African slave catchers.  As the man struggled in vain against the animal, his abductors, “being trained to the inhuman sport,” appeared to delight in his suffering.

A pregnant woman explained that she was returning home one evening from visiting with neighbors when traders seized upon her.  Since those Africans involved in slave trading increasingly traveled further and further into the interior to find human beings, this woman, like so many others, “had passed through the hands of several purchasers before she reached the ship.”

Falconbridge tells of a father and his son who, while tending to crops, were attacked, captured, and dragged off to be sold.  Another unsuspecting black man was invited by his companion to behold the gigantic European ships that were parked along the coast. Intrigued, he accepted the invitation.  Yet before he could realize that he had been manipulated, the soon-to-be slave was ambushed and taken on board the vessel.
It would be a mistake to think that the Africans didn’t have a sophisticated operation.  Falconbridge reports that traders would sail “up country” to “the fairs” in 20-30 canoes “capable of containing thirty or forty Negroes each” to purchase slaves. The canoes would be packed with “such goods” as were necessary for this purpose.  As the traders embarked, Falconbridge could see “colors flying” and “music playing;” it was a festive affair.

When the canoes return with their cargo, “the purchased Negroes are cleaned, and oiled with palm-oil [.]”  Then they are shown to the Europeans.

If, however, for whatever reasons, the captains passed on what the Africans were trying to sell, the latter would “beat those Negroes…and use them with great severity.” In a passage that is particularly revealing of the inhumanity of the treatment to which Africans would subject their own, Falconbridge writes: “It matters not whether they [the African slaves] are refused on account of age, illness, deformity, or for any other reason.”  Off the coast of New Calabar, what is today known as Nigeria, “the traders, when any of their Negroes have been objected to, have dropped their canoes under the stern of the vessel, and instantly be headed them, in sight of the captain” (italics added).

To repeat: Slaves that Europeans didn’t want African traders swiftly decapitated.

Don’t expect to hear about this in that “honest conversation” of race that the left assures us we need to have.

Jack Kerwick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Secular And Islamist Scholars Clash During Kuwaiti TV Debate On Arab Youth Engagement With Terror Organizations - MEMRI


Dashti and Al-Manna argued that although the Islamic scholars repeatedly emphasized that they do not support ISIS, their statements are in line with ISIS ideology.

During a TV debate dedicated to the engagement of Arab youth with ISIS and other terror organizations, liberal activists Nasser Dashti and Ayed Al-Manna clashed with Islamic sheikhs Abdallah Al-Hamdan and Khaled Al-Sultan. The latter compared the extremism of the Islamist terror organizations to extremism he alleged exists among secular Arabs, saying that "the same crimes are committed by both camps." Dashti and Al-Manna argued that although the Islamic scholars repeatedly emphasized that they do not support ISIS, their statements are in line with ISIS ideology. Dashti concluded that the time has come to remove religion from public life in the Arab world and to confine it to the private sphere. The show aired on the Kuwaiti Al-Shahed TV on July 11.

5596MTV A.jpg

Nasser Dashti: "The religious heritage is the cause of the cultural and ideological catastrophes from which we are suffering.



"I pay no attention to the fatwas of all those religious sheikhs. These fatwas have ripped our countries and our peoples apart, have sown destruction and discord, and have led people astray. In the wake of these fatwas, we have seen nothing but ignorance, bombings, takfir, and ethnic cleansing."


5597MTV C.jpg

Khaled Al-Sultan: "We are experiencing two kinds of extremism - religious extremism, on the one hand, and extremism in leniency and indifference toward religion, on the other hand. The same crimes are committed by both camps. Many of the (terror) incidents you are seeing in the world today... In America, for example, a man killed his mother, his wife, and his three daughters. Was that man religious?! Was he a Muslim?!"

Dashti: "That's pure evil."

Al-Sultan: "That man was an atheist. He wasn't religious.


"It's true that our interpretation of Islamic texts is based on an erroneous understanding."


5597MTV D.jpg

Dashti: "How can an erroneous understanding continue for over 14 centuries? How come only the Islamic nation finds it difficult to understand its heritage and its religious texts?


"The Quran does not speak. People do. These are religious texts... Let me give you an example of a nice verse: 'Whoever kills a soul unless for another soul - it is as if he has killed all of Mankind.' The verse that immediately follows reads: 'The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger...' Go on, complete the verse. It is that 'they be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut on alternate sides.' Look what kind of verse immediately follows the (positive) verse. The religious texts, the heritage, and the interpretations contain good and evil at the same time, and that is a problem."


5597MTV E.jpg

Ayed Al-Manna: "The Muslims in America, in Britain, in France, in Canada, and in China - how come they do not slaughter one another? Aren't there Muslims there too?"


Nasser Dashti: "Why do the Muslims dream of emigrating to the infidel countries?"

Abdallahy Khizam Al-Hamdan: "What my colleague Dr. Khaled Al-Sultan said is based on principles."

Host: "What Nasser Dashti said is also based on principles."

Al-Hamdan: "No, it is devoid of principles."

Host: 'You are claiming that what he said is devoid of principles?"

Al-Hamdan: "What Mr. Dashti said is as empty as can be."

Host: "So you claim that his words are empty?"

Al-Hamdan: "Very empty. They are not based on principles."

Host: "What about Dr. Ayed Al-Manna? Some of the things he said are correct, and some need to be corrected."


5597MTV G.jpg

Dashti: "People are always saying that ISIS does not represent Islam, that the militias do not represent Islam..."

Al-Sultan: "True, they don't."

5597MTV H.jpg

Dashti: "But if you asked Dr. Al-Sultan here about apostates, he would say that apostates should be killed. The People of the Book? He'd say that they should pay the jizya in humiliation. What about polytheists? They should be fought."

Al-Sultan: "These are all violations, like running a red light..."

Dashti: "When someone commits a traffic violation, he pays a fine. He doesn't get executed."

Al-Sultan: "The Ministry of the Interior is in charge of dealing with traffic violations, and it sends the perpetrator to court."

Al-Sultan: "These are all violations, like running a red light..."

Dashti: "When someone commits a traffic violation, he pays a fine. He doesn't get executed."

Al-Sultan: "The Ministry of the Interior is in charge of dealing with traffic violations, and it sends the perpetrator to court. Who decides in those cases of apostasy and executions? The ruler, the judge. I don't allow myself or you to..."

Dashti: "Are you comparing a traffic violation to the killing of someone who left his religion?!"


5597MTV I.jpg

Al-Sultan: "According to the Shari'a, (an apostate) should be killed.

Dashti: The People of the Book should pay the jizya tax?"

Al-Sultan: "Yes."

Dashti: "'In humiliation'"?

Al-Sultan: "Yes, in humiliation. So what? We pay for visas 'in humiliation,' so what?"

Dashti: "Do you get smacked on the back of your head while paying for your visas?"

Al-Sultan: "'In humiliation' does not mean being beaten."

Dashti: "The viewers can search on Google or in Lisan Al-Arab what 'humiliation' means."

Al-Sultan: "Fine. Go check the word in the Lisan Al-Arab dictionary. It's like when you go to an embassy and pay for a visa, whether you like it or not."


Al-Mahdan: "Good people, we do not support ISIS..."

Al-Manna: "You're done supporting them?"

Al-Mahdan: "Let me finish."

Al-Manna: "You're done with them?"


Al-Mahdan: "We do not support ISIS. Not today, not yesterday, and not tomorrow.



"What does Allah want? He wants his shari'a to be implemented. Along comes a human being and defies Allah with his mind. He defies the Creator who created this mind."

5597MTV L.jpg

Al-Manna: "That's exactly what ISIS is saying. Why don't you support them and that's it? That is exactly what they say. You want an Islamic state, and they have declared one. Why don't you support them?"

5597MTV M.jpg

Dashti: "With regard to the question why our youth are being led astray, I believe that the reason is the concept of the Hereafter, which is instilled in their minds, with all the stories of the Paradise virgins and so on, and at the same time it is the result of fatwas and heritage that prohibit all the innocent pleasures in their lives. They banned music, signing, theater, sculpture, love... Everything. Such a person has nothing to lose in this world.


5597MTV N.jpg

"So far, my two colleagues have not denounced the fundamentals of ISIS. They share with ISIS the fundamentals and ideological means - the Islamic punishments, the implementation of the shari'a, and the desire for an Islamic state - but they employ appeasing words: 'true Islam,' 'the people in charge'... I believe that the time has come for us to adopt the secular, rational, scientific approach, and to remove religion from public life and confine it to the private sphere. Every person is free to understand his religion as he sees fit, and he is free to change his religion, to adopt any school of thought or religion, and to spread his ideas in keeping with the modern rules of human rights."



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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