Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The minority of Muslim invaders: women and children.

By Carol Brown 
October 10, 2015

Much has been written on conservative news sites about the large percentage of young males invading Europe. There is a great deal to be concerned about regarding this demographic. But the women and children should not be ignored, as they bring their own kind of threat. Because while Muslim men are far more likely to be physically aggressive, Muslim women are not without responsibility for the myriad ways hate against us is nurtured and expressed – hate that is codified in the Quran.

And while Muslim males are more likely to inflict physical harm, it would be dangerous to underestimate the potential of Muslim women to do the same, because increasing numbers of them do, as was the case with this Muslim teenage girl whose greatest desire was to be a martyr for Allah. 

And so she set out to achieve her dream. And stabbed an Israeli man in the back.
Jew hatred is endemic and crops up just about everywhere in the Muslim world. This video documenting life for women in a Jordanian refugee camp ends with the words of a veiled Syrian woman (who, by the way, sells women into sham marriages that amount to nothing more than legalized rape): “I hope we don’t have the same destiny as the Palestinians who fled their country and never got it back again.”

Ah, yes. The poor “Palestinians” and those evil Jews who stole their land (the latter part is inferred).
Like the woman in this interview, it appears the majority of Muslim woman in refugee camps are wearing traditional garb that covers just about every inch of their body in the blistering desert sun. 

This suggests they are anything but secular. (And even secular people in Islamic countries marinate in a culture of hate.)

In fact, Muslim women in Syria were on the forefront in pushing for an “Islamic revival” as reported in 2006 by the NY Times: “[16-year-old] Enas al-Kaldi stops in the hallway of her Islamic school for girls and coaxes her 6-year-old schoolmate through a short recitation from the Koran…‘Skip to next paragraphIt’s true that they don’t understand what they are memorizing at this age, but we believe that the understanding comes when the Koran becomes part of you’….

“When the Koran becomes a part of you.”

And therein lies the rub.

Here’s what happens when “the Koran becomes a part of you.” You wind up with a little tot giving a Hitler salute on a German train (how apt).


[The screen shot was taken from this video, as reported at Atlas Shrugs.]

Perhaps the greatest threat of Muslim women is that they bear Muslim children who become the next generation to spread death, darkness, and destruction across the globe.

Many Muslim children are raised to hate non-believers, with a special hatred for Jews. Anti-Semitism is a constant theme in the Quran. And Muslim families waste no time in getting their children on board with a hatred as vicious as that of Nazis, except unlike Nazism, this has been going on for 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, and here for videos of Muslim children preaching Jew hatred, interviews with young Muslims of various ages talking about their hatred for Jews, and programs geared for young Muslims that teach them to be martyrs and to kill Jews, including anti-Semitic cartoons.)

Now, backing up for a moment, consider that after these aggressive Muslim male invaders are settled in their new home in the West, the next step is to bring their family. Enter: women and children. In this way, the already huge numbers of invaders expands exponentially, especially since Muslims tend to have large families. So each male invader becomes a family of 7, 8, or 9. As Daniel Greenfield writes (emphasis is mine): “…the number of migrants invading Europe this year might reach 1.5 million. And that bad news gets much worse because…each migrant will bring in as many as eight family members once they’re settled in….”

So here’s the simple math: Every male invader coming to Europe or the United States = nearly 10 Muslims.

That makes an outrageous, unacceptable, dangerous situation an imminent threat to our culture, to our very survival. 

American Thinker

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Susan Rice and the Politicization of Genocide

by Shmuley Boteach

 
 Is there any dirty job for the Obama Administration that Susan Rice is not prepared to do?
 
Need someone to fraudulently blame the murder of an American Ambassador in Libya on a stupid film? Send Susan to the Sunday talk shows.
 
Need someone to savage the leader of the only democracy in the Middle East as damaging the “fabric” of Israel’s relationship with the United States? Put Susan in the makeup chair of Charlie Rose.
 
Yes, it seems there is nothing Susan isn’t prepared to do.
 
And why should that surprise us?
 
This is the same Susan Rice who forbade Israel from criticizing John Kerry in her infamous tweet: “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.” Yes, Israel’s freedom of expression is circumscribed by none other than Susan Rice.
But there is another reason Susan Rice’s attack on the Prime Minister of Israel on Charlie Rose merits special opprobrium and that is the unique insensitivity she is famous for when it comes to genocide.
 

Iran is threatening to annihilate Israel. It is building the bombs to make that possible. It has lied to the world for more than a decade about its nuclear program. Iran is an oil superpower and energy exporter that needs nuclear energy about as much as I need a pork sandwich.
 
America is about to do a bad deal with Iran that will leave them something in the range of 5000 spinning centrifuges enriching Uranium. Israel is not party to the talks. It has been cast in the same position of Czechoslovakia in the Munich agreement of 1938 where Britain and France negotiated away Czech security (and much of the country) without the Czechs even allowed to be present.
 
And while Israel faces the possibility of genocide, Susan Rice shows gross insensitivity to an Israeli leader for simply speaking out.
 
But why shouldn’t Netanyahu entrust Israeli security to Susan Rice?
Perhaps its because of her record of trivializing genocide.
 
 In 1994 Susan Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team which took no action whatsoever during the Rwandan genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest slaughter of human beings ever recorded.
 
Not content to insist on American non-involvement, the Clinton administration went a step further by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. On April 21, 1994, the Canadian UN commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire, declared that he required only 5000 troops to bring the genocide to a rapid halt. In addition, a single bombing run against the RTLM Hutu Power radio transmitting antenna would have made it impossible for the Hutus to coordinate their genocide.
 
But on the very same day, as Phillip Gourevitch details in his definitive account of the Rwandan genocide We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We will Be Killed With Our Families, the Security Council, with the Clinton Administration’s blessing, ordered the UN force under Dallaire reduced by ninety percent to a skeleton staff of 270 troops who would powerlessly witness the slaughter to come. This, in turn, was influenced by Presidential Decision Directive 25, which “amounted to a checklist of reasons to avoid American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions,” even though Dallaire did not seek American troops and the mission was not peacekeeping but genocide prevention.
 
Indeed, Madeleine Albright, then the American Ambassador to the UN, opposed leaving even this tiny UN force. She also pressured other countries “to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands … the absolute low point in her career as a stateswoman.”
 
In a 2001 article published in The Atlantic, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning A Problem from Hell who is now Rice’s successor as American Ambassador to the United Nations, referred to Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton Administration as Bystanders to Genocide. She quotes Rice in her 2002 book as saying, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?”
 
This is an astonishing statement. Here you have Susan Rice hearing about the murder of 330 people every hour for 3 months and her response is, How will this affect us politically?
 
That Rice would have brought up the midterm elections as a more important consideration than stopping the mass murder of so many men, women, and children that their bodies were damming the rivers of Rwanda is one of the most heartbreaking pronouncements ever uttered by American official.
 
But she did not stop there.
 
Rice then joined Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, and Warren Christopher as part of a coordinated effort not only to impede UN action to stop the Rwandan genocide but to minimize public opposition to American inaction by removing words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from government communications on the subject.
 
In the end, eight African nations, fed up with American inaction, agreed to send in an intervention force to stop the slaughter provided that the U.S. would lend them fifty armored personal carriers.
 
The Clinton Administration decided it would lease rather than lend the armor for a price of $15 million. The carriers sat on a runway in Germany while the UN pleaded for a $5 million reduction as the genocidal inferno raged. The story only gets worse from there, with the Clinton State Department refusing to label the Rwanda horrors a genocide because of the 1948 Genocide Convention that would have obligated the United States to intervene, an effort in grotesque ambiguity that Susan Rice participated in.
 
It was painful enough to watch Kofi Anan elevated to Secretary General even though as head of UN peace-keeping forces worldwide he sent two now infamous cables to Dallaire forbidding him from any efforts to stop the genocide (the cables are on display in the Kigali Genocide Memorial).
 
It’s nearly as painful watching Rice now attack the Jewish state, which lost one third of its entire people in a genocide of four short years, about how its elected leader is destroying its relationship with the world’s greatest superpower simply because a weaker nation insists on standing up for itself and speaking truth to power.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom Newsweek and The Washington Post call “the most famous Rabbi in America,” is the international best-selling author of 30 books and has recently published The Fed-up Man of Faith: Challenging G-d in the Face of Tragedy and Suffering. His website is www.shmuley.com. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

 Rabbi Shmuley

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Western Media Ignore Terrorists Using Journalists as Human Shields

1 Dec 2012
 



  Last week a handful of jihadi terrorists that worked with Hamas were killed in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). These terrorists were hiding among western journalists and pretending to be one of them.

Sadly, a few actual journalists were also killed in these pinpoint strikes, but the bigger outrage is that western journalists don't seem to mind at all that these terrorists are using them for human shields. One has to wonder why that is. On November 18, The New York Times went apoplectic over those "attacks on journalists" when the IDF struck buildings that housed the studios and offices of several western and mid eastern media outlets – offices that also housed the terrorist’s operations.

The Times article gave room for terror group Hamas to claim that the Israelis were "targeting journalists" and scolded the IDF for its actions. But what The Times didn't bother to note is that the IDF wasn't attacking "journalists," it was targeting and eliminating known Hamas commanders who had been hiding their base of operations among the journalists.

This week the IDF reported its facts in this case.

IDF reports that these jihadis purposefully tried to hide among journalists.
When Operation Pillar of Defense began on Nov. 14, Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip knew that the IDF was trying to target them. That might explain why on Nov. 19, four senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives took over an office on the second floor of a civilian media building in Gaza -- where major international news networks were located -- and used it as a meeting place.
The terrorists thought that hiding in a civilian building and using international journalists as human shields would ensure their safety. Once IDF Intelligence learned of their location, the IDF surgically targeted their hiding place. A direct hit was confirmed.
The IDF blog page goes on to relay its facts and videos of the jihadis it successfully eliminated.

The post ends with these salient questions:
Should a senior Islamic Jihad commander who paints “TV” on his car be considered a journalist?
Should a cameraman for a Hamas-owned and operated television network be considered a journalist?
Should a radio show host who wears the uniform of a terrorist group be considered a journalist?
If “yes” is the answer to these three questions -- if the clear line between terrorists and journalists is blurred and there is no standard for the definition of “journalist” -- it is likely that Palestinian terrorists will continue using journalism as a cover for terrorism.
These questions are important, and every western news outlet should be forced to answer to them. Why do western journalists feel it's perfectly OK for terrorists to pretend they are journalists and endanger them all by hiding amongst them?

Disgustingly, these so-called "real" journalists are more upset at those "just a bloggers" than they are with real, murderous terrorists that use journalists as human shields to hide behind so that they can carry out campaigns to murder women and children.

But, I guess when the western media sees nothing wrong with using propaganda videos, presenting them as real news, perhaps that answers our question. Western journalists apparently care less about their craft than they do about choosing sides and throwing in with terrorists.

Big Journalism

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Netanyahu Determined to Strike Iran Before U.S. Elections

21 Aug 2012

 
 Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is determined to strike Iran before the 2012 election.  A report from Israel’s Channel 10 news claims that since the harsher international sanctions have yielded nothing from Iran, the time to act cannot be delayed. There was talk that Netanyahu would meet with Barack Obama after the late September UN General Assembly meeting in New York, but that meeting seems to have been scuttled.  In the last week, Hezbollah MP Walid Sakariya said that the nuclear weapon Iran is allegedly developing is specifically to eradicate Israel. The retired general said that, once Iran had nuclear weapons, their use would benefit Syria as well as Iran: “This nuclear weapon is intended to create a balance of terror with Israel, to finish off the Zionist enterprise, and to end all Israeli aggression against the Arab nation. The entire equation in the Middle East will change.”

Of course, Iranian officials always state that their nuclear program is only meant to be used peacefully.  But now, Egypt’s president Mohammed Morsi, the virulent Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, is visiting Iran, which is the first time since the Camp David accords that the ties between the two countries have been reestablished.

Netanyahu is certainly correct if he believes the Obama Administration cannot be trusted; after Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta met with Morsi at the end of July, he praised him this way:

I was convinced that President Morsi is his own man, and that he is the president of all the Egyptian people. It is my view, based on what I have seen, that President Morsi and Field Marshal Tantawi have a very good relationship and are working together towards the same ends.

Less than two weeks later, Morsi fired Tantawi and consolidated power, and there were reports that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood brethren were crucifying opponents.

Because Netanyahu has a clear majority in the Knesset, he is free to act. And he knows if Obama is reelected, any hope for U.S. support will be dim indeed.

Big Peace

Monday, August 13, 2012

Israeli Officials: U.S. Didn't See 9/11 Coming, How Will They Know If Iran Gets the Bomb?

13 Aug 2012


  Now that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are pushing for a military strike against Iran, even if that strike has to take place before the Nov. 6 U.S. elections, the White House is going out of its way to try to diffuse the situation. Their latest attempt comes in the form of White House spokesman Jay Carney's suggestion that the U.S. will know when Iran has a bomb and will therefore let Israel know when actions need to be taken.  Said Carney: "I would...say that we have eyes--we have visibility into the program, and we would know if and when Iran made what's called a breakout move toward acquiring a weapon."

In response to these things, Israeli officials pointed out that the U.S. "didn't see 9/11 coming," thus the Israelis don't believe it's unreasonable to presume the current administration is overlooking the danger facing the Jewish state at this very moment. Moreover, Netanyahu made it clear that Israel, rather than the U.S., is the nation that will pay the price for a miscalculation here: "Thwarting Iran amounts to thwarting a plan to destroy the Jewish people."

Netanyahu's concerns are only heightened by the fact that President Obama has yet to promise to attack Iran if diplomacy fails. Instead, Obama has simply re-stated his commitment to diplomacy regardless of what the intelligence reports indicate.

Big Peace

Israeli PM and Defense Minister Stand United: Iran Must Be Attacked This Fall

13 Aug 2012


  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are standing united on a key issue: Iran must be attacked. Moreover, both have called for attacks on Iran this fall, a call which some officials within the Jewish state allegedly oppose.  Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, both of whom are senior commentators for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, say that Netanyahu and Barak are alone in these convictions: that "not a single state official or military official or even the president -- supports an Israeli attack on Iran."

Both Barnea and Shiffer said the offices of Netanyahu and Barak "were aware that an Israeli strike on Iran may embarrass U.S. President Barack Obama's administration and strengthen...Mitt Romney." To spare Obama such embarrassment, it appears at least two commentators at Yedioth Ahronoth want to turn a blind eye to Iran's nuclear machinations.

For his part, Defense Minister Barak said that any official who disagrees with him and Netanyahu on this issue is "free to resign."

Big Peace