Posted: 22 Nov 2015 06:38 AM PST The world has just recovering from the shock of a major terrorist attack in Paris, as well as in Beirut. Now, in a video, ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] has threatened to commit another major terrorist attack, this time in Times Square, a major crowded and busy area of Manhattan. NYC [New York City] Mayor Bill De Blasio has stated that NYC will not be intimidated by the recent terrorist threat. As NYC officials try to reassure New Yorkers that there is no terrorist threat and tell people to keep going on with their lives, a former Al Qaeda terrorist predicts that ISIS will attack America in the next two weeks. Let’s say it as it is. Mayor De Blasio saying that NY refuses to be intimidated sounds as if it might as well come from a bullied kid who keeps on getting beaten up by the school bully as he walks down the halls saying, “I refuse to be intimidated.” And of course, despite his brief moment of fame, he gets beaten up again. I can understand NYC officials trying to reassure the fears New Yorkers have of this recent terrorist threat. But what’s even more needed is prevention. And that means doing what it takes to stop ISIS, not trying to take any “high road” or get all concerned about whether any terrorist will be uncomfortable getting waterboarded and putting that before the safety and security of the people in NY or anywhere else who are threatened by ISIS terrorists. I recently wrote an article saying that in certain circumstances, torturing ISIS terrorists is justified. And that view of mine has been strengthened by recent events such as the terrorist attacks in Beirut and Paris and the recent terrorist threat in Times Square, an area that I know to be ultra-crowded from having walked there before [considering that I live in NY, although I currently go to college in Vermont]. So as a New Yorker, I say, “Please torture the ISIS terrorists.” I’m begging that ISIS terrorists get tortured if that’s what it takes to stop this recent terror attack that ISIS plans on committing [yes, I think ISIS is planning on committing this attack]. De Blasio saying that NYC refuses to be intimidated is clearly not enough because if anything, it’s calling ISIS on its “bluff.” What’s needed is prevention, not just reassurance or merely sounding like a bullied boy who is standing up to a school bully in front of the whole school right before getting beaten up. ISIS and other Muslim terrorists thrive off of the weakness of their enemies [and of the West in particular]. It’s what boosts their morale and emboldens them. This weakness in the fight against Islamic terrorists has led to the knife intifada and a series of recent terrorist attacks against innocent people in Israel, among the most recent being a car attack on a father and his son in Hevron [Hebron] when they were driving to pick out flowers for Shabbat [and as I was writing this article, there are even more terror attacks on Jews in Israel that's more recent than that particular vicious attack]. And yet, back in 2002, during the second intifada, then-President of the Israeli Supreme Court Aharon Barack said:
I remember when Alan Dershowitz bragged about Israel fighting with one hand tied between its back. And from my memory, Aharom Barack was where he got it from. Clearly, fighting with one hand tied behind its back is what gives these terrorists encouragement, whether in Israel, America, or the West. The reason why ISIS attacked in Paris and why it’s going on a bloodthirsty rampage is because they’re emboldened by our [the West's] weakness Not only are we less serious about the fight against ISIS, but because of excessive political correctness, we care more about the terrorists than we do about their victims of potential victims. As innocent lives are on the line and as Muslim terrorists are going on a murderous bloody rampage, we have weak leaders who look at the situation as nothing more than logic puzzles and who pat themselves on the back for taking the “high road” or fighting with one hand tied behind its back. The Department of Homeland Security, under Janet Nepalitano [when she was serving as its head under Obama] decided to stop calling terrorism “terrorism” and instead to call it “man-made disasters.” While ISIS is on a rampage, we [America] have a President who says stuff like “ISIS is not Islamic,” never mind that in addition to the fact that the first I stands for “Islamic,” ISIS itself acts fully in the name of their fanatical interpretation of Islam and uses Muslim texts [whether out of context or not] to justify its barbaric actions. Instead, Obama harped back to the crusades, in order to say, “Put your head in the sand as ISIS is on a murderous rampage because of what the Crusades did” [albeit not in those exact words]. The point is that as Muslim terrorists are on a rampage, America, the West and Israel has had weak leaders. As for Israel, though Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is definately a better option than any crazy on the Israeli left, it’s still under him that more Arab terrorists have been released from prisons even in the mere hope of peace, only to have those terrorists back with their barbaric murders of innocent people in Israel [also back in 2005, Israel left Gaza in the "hope" of peace, only to have Gaza turn into a terrorist base, rocket attacks from Gaza onto Israel increasing, and Hamas, a genocidal Islamo-Fascist terrorist group whose charter calls for another Holocaust on the Jewish people, taking over Gaza]. The point is that Israel, America, and the West need to stand strong against Islamic terrorists, even if it means doing things that may make the CIA, the Mossad, the IDF, the American army, or any other army or secret service out to defend their countries, actions that may make its members uncomfortable or seem unethical [although since it's done in the service of saving innocent lives, it is not unethical in these situations]. I strongly believe that our rights come from Hashem [G-d]. And I believe that all other human rights come from the most precious sacred right we got from G-d, the sanctity of human life. Without respect for the basic sanctity of human life, we got nothing. So therefore, any right that may clash with the sanctity of human life should get suspended. It’s really that simple. However, once you commit barbaric murders like Muslim terrorists did, you lose you’re right to live and all your human rights. Therefore, if we have to torture these terrorists to save innocent lives, we should do it. And even if saving lives means threatening to embarrass their families [Arab and Muslim cultures are largely built around honor], we should do it [hopefully the mere threat already forces the terrorists to reveal the crucial information to save innocent lives and take down their terrorist infrastructure] because it’s better to have people embarrassed [or possibly get embarrassed] than more dead bodies. I know it may sound harsh. But when faced with those two options, choose the option that involves the shedding of less blood [and if possible, the shedding or no blood at all]. So the point is: As a New Yorker, I say to do what it takes to stop ISIS from committing that terrorist attack. Do what it take to foil that planned attack, even if the terrorists are uncomfortable in the process. I want to live. I don’t want to be risking my life every time I walk in Times Square. And I don’t want to hear about it in the news or in my emails. Screw what the leftist media says or what the far-leftists or the ACLU say. I say that the top priority should be for the safety of the people in NY or anywhere else who are threatened by Muslim terrorism, not whether these terrorists or their families may be uncomfortable when trying to find out vital information that’s needed to save lives and to more effectively fight the war on Islamic terrorism.  |
Secretary of State John Kerry Blames Settlements for Recent Terrorist Onslaught Against Israel Posted: 21 Nov 2015 10:52 PM PST Secretary of State John Kerry of the disgraceful Obama Administration, blamed the recent terror onslaught, which consists of some of the most blood thirsty murders of innoent Jews in Israel, to Israeli settlements [that is to Jews who seek to reclaim their homeland, in the face of hostile anti-Semitic world opinion which wants to ethnically Israel's biblical heartland of Jews]. Here’s what John Kerry said:
At best, this comment can clearly be summed up to making a moral equivalence, specifically as if he sounds like both sides are just frustrated. But leaving that aside, clearly this comment is a perfect example of victim blaming. It’s blaming Israel for the recent terrorist onslaught and is factually incorrect. Settlements are not the cause of terrorism. Let’s go down history lane, which is something anti-Israel propagandists don’t like [they like to show these ridiculous maps of how much land the "Palestinians" lost without mentioning that the "Palestinians" never had a sovereign country and that the land was under the British Mandate prior to the establishment of Israel and under Muslim, but Turkish, not Arab, rule for more than 400 years before that]. In 1947, the UN partitioned the land, which gave the Arabs Gaza, the “West Bank” and some areas that are now known to be in pre-1967 Israel and the Jews a sliver of the land [Jerusalem was to be an international zone]. The Jews accepted that plan while the Arabs rejected that plan. The Arabs chose to continue going to war with the Jews, rather than building up their nation that was supposed to coexist with Israel. In May 15, 1948, one day after Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion proclaimed the independance of the State of Israel on the portion given to the Jews, five Arab armies invaded Israel in order to do what then-Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha said was to be a “momentous massacre and a war of extermination like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” Thanks to the help of Hashem [G-d], the Jews managed to survive against all odds. However, Jordan and Egypt, two of the invading Arab countries, usurped Gaza and the “West Bank.” Egypt usurped Gaza while Jordan usurped the “West Bank” and the eastern half of Jerusalem. From 1949 [after the 1948 War] all the way to 1967, when Israel again defended itself against Arab agressors who wanted a second Holocaust on the Jewish people, when there was not a single Jew living in those territories [the Jordanians and the Egyptians did not allow Jews to live in those areas when they ruled them], there was still terrorist aggression against Israel. There were still attempts by terrorists and dictators in the Arab and Muslim World to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. So clearly settlements is not only not the cause, but the “Palestinian” terorrists also see Tel Aviv and Haifa as illegal settlements. And that’s the problem. Since 2005, Gaza has been emptied of any Jew living there. Israel left Gaza and left greenhouses for the “Palestinians” to start engaigng in nation building, only to have the green houses demolished and rocket launchers set up in their place. Rocket attacks from Gaza onto Israel increased. Gaza is run by Hamas, an ISIS-like Islamo-Nazi terrorist group whose charter calls for another Holocaust on the Jewish people. The people in Sderot and other cities and towns in southern Israel have to deal with rocket attacks from Gaza, an area with no settlements. This shows that settlements is not the cause of terrorism. The genocidal ideology of the “Palestinians” is the cause of the terrorism. Israel handing over territory to terrorists, releasing terrorists from its prisons, and showing weakness that emboldens the terrorists, not Israeli settlements, is the cause of terrorism. During this knife intifada, it’s clear that the genocidal terorrist incitement, which appears all over social media [with Facebook and other groups taking little action against those who post it], is the cause of this spike of terrorism, not settlements, which occupy less than 3% of the “West Bank” and has been, along with the State of Israel, the biggest source of employment for Arabs in the “West Bank.” John Kerry is clearly putting his head in the sand in a bid to bow to the radical Muslims, which empowers groups like ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. Whether the Obama Administration is hired as a double agent for radical Muslims or not is irrelevant because its policies have bennifitted radical Muslims so much. The weakness from America, the West, and Israel has emboldened the terrorists and encouraged them with their murderous rampage. But let’s say the facts. The “Palestinians” have no right to a state in Israel. It’s Jewish land. The Arabs in Israel need to either accept Jewish sovereignty or, if they want to live under Arab and Muslim rule, leave and go to one of the hellholes surrounding Israel. |
The True Cost of Europe's Muslim "Enrichment"
by George Igler • November 18, 2015 at 5:00 am
The United Nations, in 2000, advocated the "replacement" of Europe's population by Muslim migrants.
There seems to be an economic premise underlying this view: that importing the Muslim world en masseinto Europe is mutually beneficial. For decades, the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has been labelled "enrichment." Shouting "Islamophobia" does not negate how it is virtually impossible to think of a country actually made richer by it.
Even in a country with an established Islamic population such as Britain, Muslim unemployment languishes at 50% for men, and 75% for women.
Those using an economic rationale to implement Europe's demographic transformation fail to recognize the complexities of Islam: they ignore the fundamentalist revival that has been ongoing for over a century. One feature of this growing embrace of literalism is a belief -- validated by scripture -- that Muslims are entitled to idly profit from the productivity of infidels.
The idea that with time, Islam's religious tenets will somehow moderate and dissolve, merely by being lodged in Europe, is wishful thinking, especially in communities where Muslim migrants already outnumber indigenous Europeans.
The "blind eye" turned towards polygamy in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany has ensured that some Muslim men have upwards of 20 children by multiple wives, almost always at state expense. This suggests that families with fundamentalist views are outbreeding their more moderate coreligionists.
 Anjem Choudary (center), a prominent British Islamist, has urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so they could have time to plot holy war. "We [Muslims] take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money." |
The word "refugee" is a legal term, one defined by several international treaties. These documents brought the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) into existence, and sustain the relevance of the United Nations agency responsible for refugees to this day.
The contents of these treaties, however, sit oddly with how the UNHCR has comprehensively sought to hoodwink the European public about the predominant status of the demographic influx into their continent this year.
None of these documents -- the 1951 Refugee Convention; the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the EU's own Dublin Regulations -- grants the right of refugee status to those traversing several safe countries, and illegally crossing multiple borders, to shop for the best welfare state.
