Once a
Muslim, ALWAYS a murderer!
Praise be to
Allah the great fornicating dog!
"The Times also reported the story of
one 13-year-old victim who was
collected from a
children’s home, drugged with cocaine and mephedrone,
and raped by up
to seven men at so-called “sessions”, or sex parties, held by
the
groomers."
UK Imam Tells Congregation to ‘Spill Blood’ and ‘Establish Law of Allah’
Rob Stothard/Getty Images
An imam preaching in a West Midlands mosque acted as a recruiter for Islamic State and told Muslims to “be ready to spill blood” and “establish the law of Allah over the necks of the people” including the Queen, a court has heard.
Kamran Sabir Hussain, 40, allegedly told up to 15 children and about 25 adults at the mosque in Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent, that martyrdom was the “supreme success”, greater than achievements at school or college, The Times reports.
He was caught after the mosque was infiltrated by an undercover police officer, who recorded 17 of the alleged hate preacher’s sermons, starting in June last year.
A jury at the Old Baily heard that Mr. Hussain told one congregation: “Stand up and be ready to sacrifice, be ready to stand in the face of the elements of shaytan [Satan], be ready to spill blood and have your blood spilt.”
“Much of the context of Mr. Hussain’s sermons was unobjectionable,” Sarah Whitehouse, QC, for the prosecution, said. “Some of the sermons, however… moved into support and encouragement to those carrying out acts of terrorism.”
The under cover officer was know as ‘Qassim’ and maintained his cover. “Nobody knew he was a law enforcement officer and nobody knew he was recording the sermons,” added Ms. Whitehouse.
The preacher also claimed in one of his sermons that right wing, anti-Muslim groups were controlled by the government. “The kuffar [derogatory term for unbelievers] will attack you and kill you,” he added according to the Daily Mail.
In March last year, before his mosque was infiltrated, Mr. Hussain posted a “chilling message” in which he said that the “Khilafah” – a clear reference to the Islamic State – was “knocking on your door”.
He made another clear reference to Islamic State terrorists on the 5th of August last year, when he is claimed to have told his congregation that the “mujahideen” [holy warriors] will “take over a land”.
Adding: “They stand a black flag, and establish the law of Allah over the necks of the people, whether they like it or don’t like it” and “nobody – not the Queen, not the Prime Minister – can say that you are not allowed to establish the law of Allah.”
The preacher denies two charges of encouraging support for Islamic State and six of encouraging acts of terrorism. The trial continues.
Pakistani Christian Beaten to Death by Muslim Classmates ‘Whilst Teacher Read Newspaper’
RIZWAN TABASSUM/AFP/Getty
A teenager from a Christian family has been beaten to death by Muslim classmates at the MC Model Boys Government High School in Pakistan, allegedly for drinking from the same water cooler as them.
Sharoon Masih, described as “an incredibly bright student from an impoverished Christian family” by the British Pakistani Christian Association, was targeted from his first day at the school, where he was the only Christian in his year.
Classmates isolated Sharoon, telling him: “You’re a Christian, don’t dare sit with us if you want to live,” according to Christian Today.
They also attempted to convert him, slapped him, and verbally abused him as a ‘chura’ — a pejorative term for Christian — and refused to let him use a common drinking water cooler.
Muslims are discouraged from drinking from the same vessels as non-Muslims in Islam, and another Pakistani Christian — Asia Bibi — ended up languishing on death row for years following a dispute over her fitness to carry a water bowl.
Sharoon’s punishment when he drank from the cooler on his fourth day at the school was more immediate, with classmates subjecting him to a fatal beating.
Early reports suggested the teacher present at the time of the attack — named as Nazir Mol — turned a blind eye as Sharoon was pummelled to death, although he claimed he simply did not notice the beating as he was reading a newspaper.
The school’s headteacher suggested the attack actually took place between classes with no teacher present — but the teacher has since been dismissed from his post.
Christians in Australia told to hide crosses after Arabic-speaking gang shouting "F*** Jesus!" attacks couple. breitbart.com/london/2017/04…
“My son was a kind-hearted, hard-working and affable boy. He has always been loved by teachers and pupils alike and shared great sorrow that he was being targeted by students at his new school because of his faith,” said Sharoon’s mother Razia Bibi.
“Sharoon and I cried every night as he described the daily torture he was subjected to. He only shared details about the violence he was facing. He did not want to upset his father because he had such a caring heart for others.
‘The evil boys that hated my child are now refusing to reveal who else was involved in his murder. Nevertheless one day God will have his judgment.”
“Christians are despised and detested in Pakistan. They are a constant target for persecution,” added British Pakistani Christian Association chairman Wilson Chowdhry.
“This killing of a young Christian teenager at school serves only to remind us that hatred towards religious minorities is bred into the majority population at a young age, through cultural norms and a biased national curriculum.
‘This devastated family will have to cope with the immense emotional pain of a totally avoidable incident. It is a poor indictment of MC Model Boys Government High School that a Christian could be targeted in this fashion.
“However by no means is such treatment an anomaly – it is an expectation that Christians will face abuse and violence during their years in the educational system.”
Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
FROM THE MAGAZINE
Summer 2017
There’s No Such Thing as Islamophobia
Critique of religion is a fundamental Western right, not an illness.Summer 2017
The Social Order
In 1910, a French editor in the colonial ministry, Alain Quellien, published The Muslim Policy in West Africa. This work, addressed to specialists, is one of measured praise for the religion of the Koran, a “practical and indulgent” religion, better adapted to indigenous peoples, while Christianity is “too complicated, too abstract, too austere for the rudimentary and materialist mentality of the Negro.” Seeing Islam as a civilizing force that “removes peoples from fetishism and its degrading practices” and thus facilitates European penetration, the author calls for an end to prejudices that equate this confession with barbarism and fanaticism, castigating the “Islamophobia” prevalent among colonial personnel. What is needed, on the contrary, is to tolerate Islam and to treat it impartially. Quellien was writing as an administrator, concerned with order. Why demonize a religion that keeps peace in the empire, whatever may be the abuses, which he considers minor, of which it is guilty—that is, slavery and polygamy? Since Islam is the best ally of colonialism, believers must be protected from the nefarious influence of modern ideas; their way of life must be respected.
MORE HERE AT CITY JOURNAL
Maurice Delafosse, a colonial administrator living in Dakar, writes at about the same time: “Whatever may say those for whom Islamophobia is a principle of indigenous administration, France has nothing more to fear from Muslims in West Africa than from non-Muslims.” He adds: “Islamophobia therefore serves no purpose in West Africa.”
The term “Islamophobia” probably existed before these bureaucrats of the empire used it. Still, this language remained rare until the late 1980s, when the word was transformed little by little into a political tool, under the pressure of British Muslims reacting to the fatwa that the Ayatollah Khomeini had pronounced against novelist Salman Rushdie, following his publication of The Satanic Verses. With its fluid meaning, the word “Islamophobia” amalgamates two very different concepts: the persecution of believers, which is a crime; and the critique of religion, which is a right. A newcomer in the semantic field of antiracism, this term has the ambition of making Islam untouchable by placing it on the same level as anti-Semitism.
In Istanbul, in October 2013, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, financed by dozens of Muslim countries that themselves shamelessly persecute Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus, demanded that Western countries put an end to freedom of expression where Islam was concerned, charging that the religion had been represented too negatively as a faith that oppresses women and that proselytizes aggressively. The signatories’ intention was to make criticism of the religion of the Koran an international crime.
This demand arose at the United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban as early as 2001 and would be reaffirmed almost every year. UN special rapporteur for racism Doudou Diene, in a 2007 report to the organization’s Human Rights Council, decries Islamophobia as one of the “most serious forms of the defamation of religions.” In March of that year, the Human Rights Council had equated this type of defamation to racism, pure and simple, and demanded that all mockery of Islam and its religious symbols be banned. This was a double ultimatum. The first goal was to impose silence on Westerners, who were guilty of colonialism, secularism, and seeking equality between men and women. The second, even more important, aim was to forge a weapon of enforcement against liberal Muslims, who dared to criticize their faith and who called for reform of family laws and for equality between the sexes, for a right to apostatize and to convert, and for a right no longer to believe in God and not to observe Ramadan and other rites. Such renegades must face public condemnation, in this imperative, so as to block all hope of change.
The new thought crime seeks to stigmatize young women who wish to be free of the veil and to walk without shame, bareheaded in the street, and to marry whom they love and not who is imposed on them, as well as to strike down those citizens of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom of Turkish, Pakistani, or African origin who dare claim the right to religious indifference. Questions about Islam move from the intellectual, individual, or theological sphere to the penal, making any objection or reticence about the faith liable to sanction. The concept of Islamophobia masks the reality of the offensive, led by the Salafists, Wahhabis, and Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and North America, to re-Islamize Muslim communities—a prelude, they hope, to Islamizing the entire Western world. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a refugee in Qatar sought by Interpol for inciting murder and promoting terrorism, often deplored the fact that Islam failed twice in its conquest of Europe: in 732, when Charles Martel stopped the Saracens at Poitiers; and in 1689, with the aborted attempt of the Ottomans to take Vienna. Now the idea is to convert Europe to the true faith in part by transforming the law and the culture.
There remains the mystery of the transubstantiation of religion into race. The racialization of the world has to be the most unexpected result of the antidiscrimination battle of the last half-century; it has ensured that the battle continuously re-creates the curse from which it is trying to break free. A great universal religion like Islam includes a vast number of peoples and cannot be assimilated to a particular ethnic group. The term “Islamophobia,” however, invites confusion between a system of specific beliefs and the faithful who adhere to those beliefs. To contest a form of obedience, to reject dogmas that one considers absurd or false is the very basis of intellectual life, but belief in the existence of Islamophobia renders such contestation impossible. Should we speak, then, of anticapitalist, antiliberal, or anti-Marxist “racism” or phobia?
A universal religion like Islam includes a vast number of peoples and cannot be assimilated to a particular ethnic group.
But Islam benefits from a special protection. At the very time when Christian minorities in Islamic lands are persecuted, killed, and forced into exile—they are now threatened with extinction by the middle of this century—the word “Christianophobia,” despite UN officials proposing it, has not caught on, and it never will. We have difficulty seeing Christianity otherwise than as a religion of conquest and intolerance, even though today, at least from the Near East to Pakistan, it is a religion of martyrdom. In France, with its anticlerical tradition, we can make fun of Moses, Jesus, and the pope, and picture them in every posture, even the most obscene. But we must never laugh at Islam; if we do, we invite the wrath of the courts. Why this double standard? The Parisian daily Le Mondenotes that the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo had devoted only 4 percent of its covers to representations of the Prophet Mohammed, whereas it has been mocking Jesus, Moses, the Dalai Lama, and the pope for 40 years—but this 4 percent earned it a collective assassination by Islamist killers on January 7, 2015. And for criticizing two French Islamist groups with ideological complicity with the Charlie Hebdo murderers, I found myself dragged before a tribunal and charged with defamation. I won the trial—fortunately, since what I was saying was the simple truth.
And here is where the strangest factor in the whole Islamophobia controversy emerges: the enlistment of a part of the American and European Left in the defense of the most radical form of Islam—what one might call the neo-Bolshevik bigotry of the lost believers of Marxism. Having lost everything—the working class, the Third World—the Left clings to this illusion: Islam, rebaptized as the religion of the poor, becomes the last utopia, replacing those of Communism and decolonization for disenchanted militants. The Muslim takes the place of the proletarian.
The baton seems to have been passed at about the time of the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, with the resulting rise to power of Islamist revolutionaries, which was the occasion for enthusiastic commentary by Michel Foucault, among others on the left. God’s return on history’s stage had finally rendered Marxist and anticolonialist programs obsolete. The faith moved the masses better than the socialist hope. Now, it was the believer in the Koran who embodied the global hope for justice, who refused to conform to the order of things, who transcended borders and created a new international order, under the aegis of the Prophet: a green Comintern. Too bad for feminism, women’s equality, salvific doubt, the critical spirit; in short, too bad for everything traditionally associated with a progressive position.
This political attitude is manifest in progressives’ scrupulous idolatry of Muslim practices and rites, especially the Islamic veil: “modest fashion” is praised to the skies, so much so that, for certain leftist commentators, an unveiled Muslim woman who claims this right can only be a traitor, a turncoat, a woman for sale. The irony of this neocolonial solicitude for bearded men and veiled women—and for everything that suggests an oriental bazaar—is that Morocco itself, whose king is the “Commander of the Faithful,” recently forbade the wearing, sale, and manufacture of the burka in his country. Shall we call the Cherifian monarchy “Islamophobic”? Shall we be more royalist than the king?
It’s worth considering this Islamo-leftism more closely, this hope nourished by a revolutionary fringe that Islam might spearhead a new uprising, a “holy war” against global capitalism, exactly as in Baku in 1920, when Bolshevik leaders, including Zinoviev, published a joint appeal with the pan-Islamists to unleash jihad against Western imperialism. It was an English Trotskyite, Chris Harman, leader of the Socialist Workers Party, who, in 1994, provided a theory for this alliance between militant revolutionaries and radical Muslim associations, arguing for their unity, in certain circumstances, against the common enemy of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Generations of leftists saw the working class as the messianic leaven of a radiant humanity; now, willing to flirt with the most obscurantist bigotry and to betray their own principles, they transferred their hopes to the Islamists.
In his 1978 book Orientalism, Edward Said observed that, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, cartoons in the Western press sometimes depicted Arabs with hook noses and standing next to gas pumps—clearly Semites, he observed. Thus, Said maintained, the target of anti-Semitism passed from the Jew to the Arab. Did not Said call himself, in an interview in Haaretz in 2000, the last “Jew of the Middle East, a Palestinian Jew”? In short, for him, the Western Christian world’s hostility toward Islam represented the equivalent of anti-Semitism and flowed from the same source. The philosopher Enzo Traverso similarly contends that “Islamophobia plays the role for the new racism that was once played by anti-Semitism”: the rejection of the immigrant, perceived, since the colonial era, as the Other, the invader, the unassimilable foreign body in the national community; thus the specter of terrorism replaces that of Judeo-Bolshevism.
Already in 1994, in Grenoble, young Muslims, marching to protest the government ban of the Islamic headscarf, wore armbands featuring a yellow Islamic crescent—an allusion to the yellow star that French Jews were made to wear during the Occupation—against a black background and the line: “When will it be our turn?” And when Islamist militants, suspected of sympathy for the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front, were held in barracks in northern France that same year, they immediately displayed a banner: “Concentration Camp.” In Switzerland in 2011, the Islamic Central Council printed yellow stickers that associated Islamophobia with the Holocaust—a yellow star bearing the inscription “Muslim.” And it was the fundamentalist preacher Tarik Ramadan, for a time an advisor to British prime minister Tony Blair, who explained that the situation of Muslims in Europe was like that of Jews in the 1930s. The implication is clear: to criticize Islam is to prepare nothing less than a new Holocaust.
Why this Islamic desire to be considered Jewish? The answer is clear: to achieve pariah status. But the analogy is doubly false. First, anti-Semitism was never about the Jewish religion as such but rather the existence of Jews as a people. Even an unbelieving Jew was detested by anti-Semites, due to his family name and his group identity. And second, at the end of the 1940s, there were no groups of extremist Jews slitting the throats of priests in churches, as happened at Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in France in July 2016, the deed of two young jihadists; there were no Jews throwing bombs in train stations, shopping malls, or airports, or driving trucks into crowds. There is thus a third anti-Semitism that, since 1945, must be added to the classic forms, Christian and nationalist: the envy of the Jew as victim, the paragon of the disaster of the Shoah. This Jew thus becomes both model and obstacle for the Islamist; he is seen as usurping a position that by right belongs to Africans, Palestinians, and Muslims. To make oneself the object of a new Holocaust, however imaginary, is to grab hold of the maximal misfortune and to put oneself in the most desirable place—that of the victim who escapes all criticism.
It is well known how much of the Nazi legacy has passed, since the creation of Israel, to the Arab Middle East, where a classic of anti-Jewish propaganda like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, forged by the czarist regime at the end of the nineteenth century, has been a best-seller for years. Was it not the late king of Morocco, Hassan II, who said: “Hatred of Israel is the most powerful aphrodisiac of the Arab world”?
For further evidence of this corrosive envy, consider the Muslim committees in Great Britain that, in 2005, urged then–prime minister Tony Blair to replace Holocaust Memorial Day (dedicated to the Shoah) with Genocide Day. “The very name Holocaust Memorial Day sounds too exclusive to many young Muslims,” one committee member argued. “It sends out the wrong signals: that the lives of [some] people are to be remembered more than others. It is a grievance that extremists are able to exploit.” Sir Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Great Britain until 2006, added: “The message of the Holocaust was ‘never again’ and for that message to have practical effect on the world community it has to be inclusive. We can never have double standards in terms of human life. Muslims feel hurt and excluded that their lives are not equally valuable to those lives lost in the Holocaust time.”
On the view of Islamic fundamentalists and many progressives, the Muslim should replace the Jew for another reason: the Jew has dishonored his status and become in turn a colonizer, with the creation of the State of Israel. The idealization of the Jew after the war prepared the subsequent smear campaign; in other words, the Judaizing of the Muslims entailed the Nazification of the Israelis. There is the good Jew of yesterday, eternally persecuted, and the bad Israeli who has taken hold in the Middle East, imperious and racist. Traverso makes the formulation candidly: in the past, he argues, Jews and blacks fought together as antifascists and anticolonialists; then the Jews broke through the color line and became “white”—that is, oppressors. Today’s true Jew wears the headdress and speaks Arabic; the other is an imposter and usurper. To quote one statement among thousands, here’s former French diplomat Stéphane Hessel, speaking to the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper in 2011: “If we compare the German occupation with the present occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, then it was relatively inoffensive, apart from exceptional elements such as incarcerations, executions, internments, and the theft of works of art.”
Once the equivalence between Judeophobia and Islamophobia is established, the next step is to put in place the principle of elimination—a subtle but effective process of symbolic expropriation. It is our turn, say the Islamic fundamentalists. In this way, Islam is able to present itself as the creditor of humanity as a whole: we are in its debt because of the wrongs inflicted since the Crusades, the wound of colonization, and the occupation of Palestine by the Zionists—and finally because of the bad image from which the religion of the Prophet suffers.
How should we react to this semantic racket? By affirming that we must not misunderstand our debts. Europe has an obligation where Judaism is concerned, since it has been part of Europe’s history from its origins. Islam is part of the contemporary French and European landscape, yes, and thus has the right to our sympathy, to freedom of worship, to police protection, to appropriate places for prayer, and to respect. But it must in turn respect republican and secular rules, not claim an extraterritorial status with special rights, such as exemption from swimming and gymnastics for girls, prayer places within businesses, separate instruction, and various favors and privileges in hospitals. Believers must be protected, but so must unbelievers, apostates, and skeptics. I proposed as early as 2006 the creation of a vast support system for dissidents from Islam, just as we helped Soviet dissidents. We must advocate freedom of doctrinal criticism, too, just as we do for Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. The point is not to make Europe Islamic but to make Islam European, so that it is one religion among others and might, someday, help spread tolerance and a renewal of critical thought to the rest of the umma.
This conception of a secular society that encompasses a large Muslim community—5 to 6 million individuals—distinguishes France from the Anglo-Saxon world, which tends to believe that it can protect itself from Islamist terrorist attacks through respect for cultural differences and noninterference in the internal affairs of communities. Yet this principle of noninterference didn’t prevent the terror attack in London that killed five in March 2017 or the Manchester massacre of May 2017 that killed 22. And British cities such as Bradford (where hundreds of copies of Rushdie’s Satanic Verses were burned in 1989, just as the Nazis burned “degenerate” books in Nuremberg in 1933) and Birmingham, ever more dominated by Muslim fundamentalists, have transformed into little emirates, stifling to friends of freedom. As for the United States, despite President Obama’s outreach to Islam in Cairo in 2009, the Muslim world still detests it, whatever it does, owing to the simple fact of its existence.
France is attacked not because it oppresses Muslims but because it liberates them from the hold of religion. It offers them a perspective that terrifies the devout—that of spiritual indifference, the right to believe or not to believe, as Jews and Christians are able to do. If France were this prison that some describe, how can one explain the fact that so many people from North Africa and the Middle East come to live there, day after day, as much for economic opportunities as for the freedoms they can enjoy, including the freedom finally to leave behind bigotry, rites, and the power of mosques and of imams? Let’s not forget that, for two centuries, since Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt in 1798, France has maintained close ties with the Arab-Muslim world and has at least the potential to become the leader of an Islamic Enlightenment, as the great orientalist Jacques Berque has suggested.
The notion of Islamophobia is meant to give the religion of the Prophet a status of exemption denied to other spiritual systems. Thus, we have the reprehensible law enacted by the Canadian Parliament this March that prohibits criticism of Islam, while other confessions still can be denigrated without any problem. Such a law is a poisoned gift that risks producing the opposite of what it intends, since it can incite anger and resentment against the believers of the crescent. To regularize the presence of Islam in free societies means giving the faith exactly the same status as other confessions: neither moronic demonizing nor blind idealizing. Muslims in free societies must accept what Jews and Christians have accepted: that it is not a superior religion that should benefit from advantages refused to other confessions. We must beware when fanaticism borrows the language of human rights and dresses up as a victim in order better to impose its grip on power. There is an old saying: the devil also likes to quote scripture.
Walk through the streets of any big European or American city, and you will pass innumerable Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, and evangelical churches, Hindu temples, synagogues, mosques, pagodas, and on and on. This peaceful cohabitation of diverse expressions of the divine is a wonder of the West. “When there is only one religion, tyranny rules; when there are two, religious war reigns; when there are many, liberty comes,” Voltaire observed. The best that we can wish for Islam is not “phobia” or “philia” but a benevolent indifference in a spiritual marketplace, open to all beliefs. But it is precisely this indifference that the fundamentalists want to eradicate. It cannot be the equal of other faiths, since it believes itself superior to them all. This is the core of the problem.
Pascal Bruckner is a French writer and philosopher. His article was translated by Alexis Cornel.
Lawrence of Arabia described the exact tribal war activities we see today in ISIS, including male rape. The Brits then brought the Saudi tribe to power.
September 11, 2017
Were the Saudis Behind 9/11?
By James Lewis
1. On September 9, 2017, Paul Sperry of the New York Post dropped the biggest headline hint so far that, Yes, the Saudis plotted, trained, funded, ordered, and covered up the assault on America on 9/11.
The headline does not come out and actually say that the Saudis committed the greatest anti-American civilian atrocity 16 years ago. It just says that "the Saudis allegedly funded a "dry run" of the 9/11/01 attack two years before it was actually executed. But by now we know so much supportive evidence that we might as well tell the whole truth.
Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago."
Well, if you're a bank robber, and you go through a "dry run" of the robbery two years before actually committing it, and "somebody" then carries out the outrageous crime, chances are that the dry runners and the perps are the same.
We have plenty of evidence of Saudi guilt for 9/11. We know that the 17 Wahhabi (Saudi-indoctrinated) terrorists killed civilian cabin personnel and pilots in those four "American" and "United" airplanes, slitting their throats with utility knives, according to the ancient Koranic war command, "you shall cut them at the neck."
We have seen plenty of actual beheadings on ISIS videos, and we know that the Wahhabi priesthood in Saudi Arabia has endorsed ISIS for its Nazilike murders, rapes, kidnappings, and sadistic treatment of innocent children, women, and men wherever ISIS operate. It is vital for Americans to understand that the war theology of "ISIS," "Al Qaida," "Al Nusrah", "Al Qaida in the Maghreb," on and on, are all the same. The hierarchy that runs it from the Sunni Gulf States is the same, the methodology is the same, the utter inhuman cruelty of killing innocents is the same, the religious rationale is the same, on and on and on.
However, it should be understood that the Shi'ites of Iran run a separate chain of command, with separate murderers, etc. We have two fanatical enemies, both based in the war verses of the Koran, but they hate each other to death. Donald Trump has just exploited that split between mass murderers hailing from Sunni Islam, and the mass murderers coming from Shi'te Islam. Trump is now in a formal alliance with the Saudis (and Israelis, and other Sunni Gulf States) against Iran, the Shiite head of the monster.
During WW I the British brought the Saudis to power in order to drive out the Ottoman Turks. British agent "Lawrence of Arabia" (T.E. Lawrence) convinced the Arab speakers of the Arabia desert to rebel against the Turks, supplying them with British arms and advice.
Lawrence of Arabia described the exact tribal war activities we see today in ISIS, including male rape. The Brits then brought the Saudi tribe to power.
Saudi Arabia is always on the edge of collapse, because it is not a modern nation, but a desert tribal federation.
The war theology of desert Islam has been well-described by now, in excellent, scholarly sources freely available on the web.
In human tribal history, war theologies are not unusual. Japanese State Shinto, which led to WW II, was based on Bushido a debased version of the Samurai code. The Teutonic Knights were a similar war cult that eventually led to Bismarck's Prussia, which then forced the unification of the German-speaking provinces in the 19th century in a single, top-down controlled Reich. Hitler's war started as a revenge for losing World War I. Hitler came to power by peddling the "stab-in-the-back" myth to explain Austro-Hungarian defeat in WWI.
Human tribal warfare is very common, as shown by anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, based on his field work with the Yanamamo of South America. In human tribal history, up to 30% of adult males die in intergroup violence. So war cults and martyrdom cults are part of human history. The Kim dynasty in North Korea has always prepared for and encouraged war. Today, the Iranian Muslims (Shi'a) constantly chant, "Death to America! Death to Israel!" Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizb’allah also raise their children to kill any designated enemy, preferably through martyrdom. Successful killer-martyrs are promised life eternal in Heaven, with all the virgins and all that.
American liberals keep telling the world that such things could not exist, because people are fundamentally good. They are utterly ignorant, and "none so blind as will not see."
What happened on 9/11?
The attackers commandeered civilian passenger planes, and suicidally flew them into the Twin Towers in Manhattan; a third passenger plane was flown into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a fourth airplane crashed when its passengers heroically rebelled against the throat-cutting murderers and crashed in Pennsylvania. These assaults count as the biggest enemy attack on American civilians in history. In the Geneva Conventions, the politically motivated murder of civilians is treated even more seriously than surprise attacks on members of the military in uniform.
These are the most likely hypotheses based on the evidence. But we will not know the full truth until the 28 censored pages from the 9/11 Report are published. The U.S. media, which evidently colluded in the greatest national security coverup, must now tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If any media outlet fails to cover this, American patriots must simply boycott them and their owners and sponsors. This is a question of national life or death.
2. Who did the coverup?
When the 9/11 attacks took place, none of our presidents, nor our enormous Deep Government, nor any major news outlets told the truth.
As a result, even today, most Americans know little, except that fake "Islamophobia" is a terrible thing. Americans need to learn the truth and we must know the truth to understand that Jihad War that was launched against us on that second Day of Infamy. No nation can protect itself against future dangers if it only learns lies about previous acts of national aggression.
3. Who ran the coverup and why?
The 9/11 attack was covered up.
a. 9/11/ was not the first attack by Al Qaida and its militant networks against the Twin Towers. There was an amazingly similar truck bomb attack in 1993 by the same network, and some of the perps were caught and sentenced to jail terms.
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review was the federal prosecutor in that case, and has written extensively about it. McCarthy has been one of the truth-tellers in a time of shameful lies and coverups.
Bill and Hillary Clinton knew about the failed truck-bomb attack on the Twin Towers in 1993. We know that Bill was offered Bin Laden's head on a platter by four different Arab regimes, in secret, and that he refused four times. There is no question that the Clintons knew about the danger ahead of time, and utterly failed to pursue Bin Laden's AQ network when there was still time to knock them out. That abject cowardice is interpreted in war theologies like desert Islam as a plain and obvious sign of weakness, and it always increases the chance of more attacks. This is elementary logic about hyperaggressive regimes.
Instead of revealing and mobilizing American public opinion against a clear and obvious danger, the Clintons made money off it. The fact that Huma Abedin has become Hillary's closest friend and assistant over the last 20 years, and that Huma comes from a Muslim Brotherhood family that runs a "charity" in the UK to promote Jihad, makes Huma, Hillary, and Bill criminally liable. They owe the American People an explanation, and instead, they have been taking tens of millions of dollars from known Jihad sources.
We do not know whether Bush-Cheney knew about the danger of attack ahead of time, but it seems unlikely. The assault happened early in the Bush II administration, possibly before they were warned.
We have to understand that after 9/11, every major intelligence agency in the world must have known who the perps were.
Former UCMC Commandant Jim Mattis has often said "There is always treachery." It is a basic rule of war in his lifelong teachings. The fact that Mattis is now SecDec shows where Trump is moving -- against Jihad, finally, after decades of Democrat and RINO betrayal of the American people in their greatest danger.
If you do not believe we are in very great danger today, consider that Kim III now has ICBMs and nuclear weapons, and that Kim always works in collusion with Iranian Jihad. North Korea is thought to have gotten its latest mass murdering toy with cooperation from Tehran. Although Pakistan, which also follows a Jihadist war theology, is another candidate.
On the honorable side, Admiral James Lyon (USN, Ret) has been publicly warning against the Jihad being obviously waged against the U.S. (and other "Christian" countries) by Jihad, both the Sunni and Shi'ite imperial aggressors. I believe Adm. Lyons risked his life to expose the truth, the last time at the Press Club in Washington, DC.
I believe that Donald Trump guessed or knew the truth, as an international businessman, with his own intelligence sources. When Trump ran for office, the Deep State freaked out, in fear of exposure, along with the mass media, which also understood what was going on. The Democrats, the mass media, and the Deep State are basically one.
The Obama Administration was clearly penetrated by pro-Jihad, anti-American forces from the beginning. Obama all but publicly endorsed the Jihad against America. The flagrant use of an Arabic name, instead of his given name Barry Soetoro, is only one little sign. Another is the "disguised" Shahada ring he has worn ever since his trip to Pakistan as a college student with his Pakistani roommate. The Shahada is the oath of loyalty to Islam. Deception is a major war tactic in Islam. Yet a third sign of Obama's Jihad loyalties is his symbolically vital visit to a Muslim Mosque in the waning days of his presidency; the mosque had a prominent sign (shown in the New York Times) that "nothing is achieved without struggle." (The Arabic word for "struggle" is Jihad.) The Obama years constantly played in Muslim Jihadist hints, knowing that most Americans are utterly ignorant about all that. It is part of Obama's personality disorders.
Valerie Jarrett (Obama's "alter ego") was brought up in Iranian-style Islam (Shi'ite). She sold out U.S. and Western safety to Iran in the infamous nuclear agreement.
OIL, OIL, OIL.
The Saudis controlled OPEC, the oil cartel. That gave them worldwide price control, a sword hanging over the heads of all modern nations. Jimmy Carter's Arab oil embargo showed how much power the desert tribes of Arabia had. That is probably why they took the risk of assaulting the United States, and then serially Britain, France, Spain, on and on.
Please note a few bottom lines:
1. The U.S. was betrayed over and over and over again by our political class, by our Deep State, and by our media oligopoly.
I think the Bushes are patriots, but they also have major oil connections.
2. Donald Trump has been brilliant, and he certainly comes across as a genuine patriot. That is why the corrupt Deep State, and the even more corrupt Democrats and media, hate Trump. But slowly, slowly, the truth has been emerging in the Trump campaign, and then in the first Trump year. Without American leadership against evil, the world is full of cowards and traitors.
3. Saudi Arabia has now lost control of the price of oil. Trump's vigorous opening up of U.S. energy has made a huge difference, because now we have the biggest clout over the world price. That was a very deliberate move, previously sabotaged by environmental fanatics who were probably bought off by both kinds of Muslim oil regimes.
So yes, oil was a big part of the picture, but with the advent of shale exploitation around the world, plus the American resurgence in domestic energy production, we now have the upper hand.
Europe falls to the Muslims as America did to the invading Mexicans!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/visit-austria-before-it-becomes-allahs.html
MUSLIMS ARE DOING TO EUROPE WHAT MEXICANS HAVE DONE
TO AMERICA....JUMP THE BORDERS , BREED ANCHOR BABIES FOR
WELFARE... VOTE FOR MORE.
Once a Muslim, ALWAYS a murderer!
Praise be to Allah the great fornicating dog!
"The Times also reported the story of one 13-year-old victim who was
collected from a children’s home, drugged with cocaine and mephedrone,
and raped by up to seven men at so-called “sessions”, or sex parties, held by
Sixteen years after 9/11: lies, hypocrisy and militarism
12 September 2017
The sixteenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed more than 2,900 people in the United States were marked once again on Monday with ceremonies at the site of the World Trade Center’s demolished Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania where one of four hijacked planes crashed as passengers fought to regain control of the aircraft.
Thousands gathered in New York City for the solemn reading of the names of those who lost their lives to a criminal and reactionary terrorist attack that served only the interests of US and world imperialism, which ever since have exploited the events to justify wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights the world over.
The genuine emotions of sorrow and remembrance shared by those who lost loved ones on 9/11 once again stood in sharp contrast to the banality and hypocrisy of the official commemorations staged by US officials.
This longstanding dichotomy reached a new level with the main speech of the day delivered by the fascistic billionaire con-man President Donald Trump at the Pentagon Monday. Trump, whose first reaction on the day of the attacks was to brag—falsely—that the toppling of the Twin Towers had made his own property at 40 Wall Street the tallest building in lower Manhattan, delivered remarks that consisted of barely warmed-over platitudes from previous addresses, repeated tributes to the American flag and a vow to “defend our country against barbaric forces of evil and destruction.”
Trump repeated the well-worn cliché that on September 11 “our whole world changed.” The phrase is meant to suggest that the unending wars, police state measures and sweeping changes in American political life over the past 16 years have all been carried out in response to the supposedly unforeseen and unforeseeable events of September 11, having nothing to do with anything that came before.
That this is a cynical and self-serving lie becomes clearer with every passing year.
On the eve of the anniversary, new revelations emerged linking Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest ally in the Arab world, to the preparation of the September 11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. The corporate media, which published nothing of any significance on the anniversary, largely blacked out this new evidence. The New York Times marked the anniversary with an editorial detailing efforts by the New York City medical examiner to identify human remains.
A federal lawsuit on behalf of the families of some 1,400 of the 9/11 victims has presented evidence that the Saudi embassy in Washington financed what was apparently a “dry run” for the 9/11 attacks in 1999. Two Saudi agents posing as students boarded an America West flight from Phoenix to Washington, D.C. with tickets paid for by the Saudi embassy. The lawsuit states that both men had trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan with some of the 9/11 hijackers. While on the flight, the two asked flight attendants technical questions about the plane that raised suspicions and twice attempted to enter the cockpit, leading the pilot to carry out an emergency landing in Ohio. Both men were detained and questioned by the FBI, which decided not to pursue any prosecution.
This is only the latest in a long series of revelations that have made it abundantly clear that the events of 9/11 could never have taken place without substantial logistical support from high places. Despite the repeated claims that the attacks “changed everything,” there has never been an independent and objective investigations into how they were carried out. And, despite being what is ostensibly the most catastrophic intelligence failure in American history, no one was ever held accountable with so much as a firing or a demotion.
What evidence has emerged makes it clear that the 9/11 hijackers were able to freely enter the country and attend flight schools despite the fact that a number of those involved had been subjects of surveillance by the CIA and FBI for as long as two years before the attack. Two of them actually lived in the home of an FBI informant.
Twenty-eight pages of heavily redacted documents released in 2016 after being concealed from the public for 13 years established that Saudi intelligence officers funneled substantial amounts of money to the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, while assisting them with finding housing as well as flight schools to attend.
While Saudi Arabia was the government most active in carrying out the September 11 attacks, the involvement of Saudi intelligence really means the involvement of a section of the American state apparatus. This is not a matter of conspiracy theories, but established fact. It is bound up with very real conspiracies involving the CIA, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda going back to the Islamist group’s founding as an arm of Washington’s dirty war against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Far from the attacks having “changed everything,” they provided the pretext for acts of military aggression long in preparation. In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union a decade earlier, the ruling class initiated a policy developed to use US military might to offset the decline of American capitalism on the world arena. Afghanistan and Iraq were targeted to secure military dominance over two major oil- and gas-producing regions on the planet, the Caspian Basin and the Middle East.
This thoroughly criminal enterprise, justified in the name of 9/11’s victims, has claimed the lives of over 1 million Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Afghans and unleashed the greatest refugee crisis since the Second World War.
The invocation of a “war on terror”—passed down from Bush to Obama and now to Trump—to justify these crimes has become not only threadbare, but patently absurd. The results of 16 years of uninterrupted US wars of aggression have included an unprecedented growth of Al Qaeda and related Islamist militias, largely as a result of US imperialism’s utilization of these elements as proxy ground forces in wars for regime change in Libya and Syria.
Moreover, the multiple wars and interventions conducted by the Pentagon and the CIA, from North Africa to Central Asia, can quickly metastasize into a global conflagration, with Washington simultaneously threatening nuclear war against North Korea and pursuing increasingly dangerous confrontations with its principal geo-strategic rivals, Russia and China.
September 11 did not “change everything,” but it did mark the beginning of an escalation of what George W. Bush called the “wars of the twenty-first century,” that is, escalating imperialist aggression that is leading mankind toward a third world war.
Bill Van Auken
No comments:
Post a Comment