The Turkish Ottoman Empire Strikes Back

The return of the Turkish Ottoman Empire is etched in biblical prophecy and a number of Christians, and politically aware non-Christians, have seen this coming for a long time.

I am convinced (but you should do your own research) that the restoration of the Turkish empire will form the basis of the antichrist empire itself.

Step by step, as this latest news article suggests:

Turkey should have a religious constitution, its parliamentary speaker Ismail Kahraman has said in comments that will likely add to concerns of the erosion of secularism under the ruling party.

“As a Muslim country, why should we be in a situation where we are in retreat from religion?” state-run news agency Anatolia quoted him as saying.

“We are a Muslim country. As a consequence, we must have a religious constitution,” the AKP lawmaker told a conference in Istanbul.

“Secularism cannot feature in the new constitution.”

Critics accuse President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamic-rooted AKP of eroding the secular values laid by modern Turkey’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk since it took power in 2002.

Over the past two years, the Government has lifted bans on women and girls wearing headscarves in schools and civil service.

It also limited alcohol sales and made efforts to ban mixed-gender dormitories at state universities.

The head of Turkey’s main CHP opposition party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, slammed the speaker’s comments.

The Young Turks

Between East and West, Europe and the Middle East, Islam and Secularism. Six young Istanbul residents talk about the issues.

“The chaos that reigns in the Middle East is the product of ways of thinking that, like you, make religion an instrument of politics,” Mr Kilicdaroglu wrote on Twitter.

“Secularism exists so everyone can practise their religion freely, Mr Kahraman!”

Since the AKP’s re-election in November, the Government has said it wants to prioritise replacing Turkey’s constitution, inherited from a military junta after a coup in 1980.

Several rounds of negotiations have failed, most recently in February, with the opposition rejecting the increasingly powerful role of the presidency under Mr Erdogan.

Mr Kahraman on Monday backed a “presidential system” for Turkey, and rejected claims this would push the country towards authoritarianism.

“Some people say that [a strengthened presidency] means dictatorship,” he said.

“Where is this link? Is [US President Barack] Obama a dictator?”

To answer that last question: Obama’s certainly getting there, with his recent executive actions.

So don’t let that quip make you feel safe.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/turkey-parliamentary-speaker-calls-for-religion-in-constitution/7357312

Syrian Refugee In Germany Burns Down His Hotel Accomodation, Spray Paints Swastikas On Walls To Implicate People Who Warn About The Dangers Of Muslim Refugees

This story is hardly uncommon these days.

It’s all part of Islam in its new home: The West.

A SYRIAN refugee has admitted smearing swastikas and starting a fire at the asylum centre where he was staying because he wanted to be moved to a better location.

The blaze badly damaged the hotel in the town of Bingen am Rhein in Rhineland-Palatina last week

The blaze badly damaged the hotel in the town of Bingen am Rhein in Rhineland-Palatinat, Germany, last week, where a number of refugees and seasonal workers were living.

The apparent racist attack caused outrage in Germany, and was widely reported in local media with demands that those responsible be tracked down and punished. 

The 26-year-old Syrian told police he was fed up with the cramped living conditions in the hotel. 

He had been living there for six months when he started the fire which left four residents and two firefighters needing treatment for smoke inhalation, police revealed.

The refugee sprayed the swastikas on the building in a bid to put responsibility for the blaze on right-wing extremists.

Detectives arrested the man after other residents identified him as the arsonist.

He is currently being held in custody.

His arrest came a secret plan devised by Brussels was revealed, which could see countries in the European Union take on 250,000 migrants from Turkey every single year.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/659981/Syrian-refugee-smeared-swastikas-started-fire-asylum-centre

“Islam Is Colonialism, Palestine Is Colonialism”

The Leftists/Progressives/Marxists always needs victims that they can stir into a frenzied rage against their powerful and/or cashed up enemies.

That’s why their attacks on colonialism have been like an endless goldmine – there were a lot of legitimate victims but the real jackpot lies in that there are now a never-ending series of faux victims.

But as with all Leftist narratives, their “colonialism is evil” narrative is filled with holes, double standards and blinding hypocrisy.

While you are evil for being a white Westerner who “invaded” any one of Western Europe’s colonies of old, the same standard does not apply to Islam, which has quite literally conquered one quarter of the land on our entire planet.

Read it: ONE QUARTER OF ALL LAND ON EARTH IS OCCUPIED BY ISLAM.

And make no mistake: every square inch was taken by murdering, raping, and thieving conquest.

And make no further mistake: unlike many Western nations, Islam harbours no empathy or sympathy for its victims. 

Daniel Greenfield’s recent article exposes this facet of the Progressive agenda:

At Israeli Apartheid Week, campus haters claim to be fighting “colonialism” by fighting Jews. Columbia University’s Center for Palestine Studies, dedicated to a country that doesn’t exist and which has produced nothing worth studying except terrorism, features diatribes such as Palestine Re-Covered: Reading a Settler Colonial Landscape”. This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population.

You can’t colonize Palestine because you can’t colonize colonizers. The Muslim population in Israel is a foreign colonist population. The indigenous Jewish population can resettle its own country, but it can’t colonize it.

Muslims invaded, conquered and settled Israel. They forced their language and laws on the population. That’s the definition of colonialism. You can’t colonize and then complain that you’re being colonized when the natives take back the power that you stole from them.

There are Muslims in Israel for the same reason that there are Muslims in India. They are the remnants of a Muslim colonial regime that displaced and oppressed the indigenous non-Muslim population.

There are no serious historical arguments to be made against any of this.
The Muslim conquests and invasions are well-documented. The Muslim settlements fit every historical template of colonialism complete with importing a foreign population and social system that was imposed on the native population. Until they began losing wars to the indigenous Jewish population, the Muslim settlers were not ashamed of their colonial past, they gloried in it. Their historical legacy was based on seizing indigenous sites, appropriating them and renaming them after the new conquerors.

The only reason there’s a debate about the Temple Mount is because Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem and ordered a mosque built on a holy Jewish site. The only reason there’s a debate about East Jerusalem is because invading Muslim armies seized half the city in 1948, bombed synagogues and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population to achieve an artificial Muslim settler majority.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Israel is littered with Omar mosques, including one built in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because Islam is a colonial entity whose mosques testify to their invasive origins by celebrating colonialism as their true religion. The faith of Islam is the sworn religion of the sword.

Islam is a religion of colonialism that spread through invasion, settlement and conquest. Its caliphs, from the original invaders, including Omar, to the current Caliph of ISIS, wielded and wield religious authority in the service of the Islamic colonial enterprise.

Allah is the patron deity of colonialism. Jihad is just colonialism in Arabic. Islamic theology is nothing but the manifest destiny of the Muslim conquest of the world, colonial settler enterprises dressed up in the filmy trappings of religion appropriated from the culture of conquered Jewish and Christian minorities. Muslim terrorism is a reactionary colonial response to the liberation movements of the indigenous Jewish population.

Even “Allahu Akbar” did not originate as a religious sentiment. It does not mean “God is Great”, as it is often mistranslated. It was Mohammed’s taunt to the Jews he was ethnically cleansing. His purge of a minority group proved that “Allah was Greater”. Islamic colonialism is used to demonstrate the existence of Allah. And the best way to worship Allah is through the colonialism of the Jihad.

Islam would not have existed without colonialism. It still can’t exist without it. That is why the violence continues. The only way to end the violence is for Muslims to reject their theology of colonialism.

But instead of taking ownership of their real history, the Muslim settler population evades its guilt through propaganda by claiming to be the victims of colonialism by the indigenous Jewish population. This twisted historical revisionism is backed by bizarre nonsense such as claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian or that the Arabs are descended from the Philistines. The Muslim settlers insist on continuing to celebrate colonialism while claiming to be an indigenous population that was always living in Israel.

You can have one or the other. You can have your mosques celebrating the conquest and suppression of the indigenous population or your claims of being the indigenous population. But you can’t switch from being the indigenous population to being its conquerors whenever it suits your pseudo-historical narrative. You can’t claim to be the Philistines, the Jews and their Islamic conquerors at the same time.

From its Roman origins, Palestine has always been a colonial fantasy of remaking Israel by erasing its original Jewish identity. The Arab mercenaries who were deployed by the Romans in that original colonial enterprise continued it by becoming self-employed conquerors for their own colonial empire. The name Palestine remains a linguistic settlement for reimagining a country without a people and a past as a blank slate on which the colonial identity of the invaders can be written anew. That is still the role that the Palestine myth and mythology serves.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “linguistic colonialism”. When Muslims rename the Spring of Elisha, a Jewish biblical figure, Ein as-Sultan in honor of an Islamic colonial ruler, that’s linguistic colonialism. When Jews restore the original indigenous names that Jewish sites held before Muslim colonialism, that’s not colonization. It’s the exact opposite. It’s decolonization.

Promoting mythical claims of a Palestinian state isn’t decolonization, it’s colonization. Or recolonization. Advocates for “Palestine” are not fighting colonialism, but promoting it. They are advocating for a discredited Muslim settler fantasy and against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “geographic amnesia” among “Palestinians”. There’s no geographic amnesia because you can’t remember what never existed. There’s only paramnesia because there was never a country named Palestine.

Palestine has no history. It has no people. It has no borders. It has never been anything except a colonial invention. It is a name used by a variety of foreign settlers operating on behalf of colonial empires.

You can’t colonize Palestine. How can you colonize a colonial myth? You can only decolonize it.

Every Jewish home built on land formerly under the control of the Caliphs is decolonization and decaliphization.

When Jews ascend the Temple Mount, they are also engaging in decolonization and decaliphization.

When the liberation forces of the Jewish indigenous population shoot a Jihadist colonist fighting to impose yet another Islamic State on Israel, that too is decolonization and decaliphization.

Resistance to Islamic terrorism is resistance to colonialism. And Jews have the longest history of resisting the Islamic State under its various Caliphs throughout history. Israel is still resisting the colonialist Jihadist plans for the restorations of the Caliphate.
Zionism is a machine that kills Islamic colonialism.

The existence of Israel not only means the decolonization of Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh’s imaginary colonial fantasies of “Palestine”, but inspires resistance in peoples struggling against Islamic colonialism throughout the region, from the Copts to the Berbers to secular intellectuals fighting for freedom.

Islamic colonialism has always been defeated, whether at the Gates of Vienna or in the Sinai Desert. Its colonial fantasies are false and will be defeated as many times as it takes, whether in the form of Palestine or ISIS.

http://barbwire.com/2016/04/11/islam-colonialism-palestine-colonialism/

Muslims Offer $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Demonstate That The Qur’an Promotes Terrorism: Robert Spencer Wins $10,000

Comedy gold – except for the Qur’an promoting terrorism.

Should I use the money to buy a good used car or take an extended vacation?

March 28, 2016 Robert Spencer 56

Dear Omar Alnatour:

Thank you so very much for offering “anyone $10,000 if they can find me a verse in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror.” My 1999 Toyota is on its last legs, and your generous gift will enable me to replace it with a modest but fully operational used midsize sedan. Or maybe (since it has been years since I’ve had a break), if I can keep the jalopy going for awhile, I will use your ten grand take a vacation to Paris and Brussels — before it’s too late, you know?

Anyway, here is my entry, which I am confident will win the $10,000 prize. I’ll make sure of that by giving you even more than you asked for: you wanted just a single Qur’anic verse that “says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror,” I’ll give you more than one of each, just so there is no doubt:

The Qur’an says it’s ok to kill innocent people

“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 9:5)

The verse says to kill the idolaters – mushrikun – those who worship others besides Allah. Now I don’t know, Mr. Alnatour, if you might think “idolaters” are by virtue of being “idolaters” are not innocent and therefore worth killing, but I’m with Thomas Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I don’t think my neighbor to have forfeited his innocence if he prays to gods I don’t recognize, and I hope you don’t, either.

Now I expect that you will say that this Qur’an verse refers not to all idolaters, but only to one very specific group of idolaters, the polytheist Quraysh tribe of Mecca that was making war against Muhammad, and that this verse has no force now that they have been conquered and Islamized, and doesn’t apply to any other idolaters. It would have been nice for Allah to make that clear in the pages of his perfect book, but who am I to question the will of a deity?

What’s more, classic Muslim commentators on this Qur’an verse give no hint that it has long expired. On the contrary, Ibn Juzayy notes that it cancels out peaceful verses; he says that it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). As-Suyuti agrees: “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except death or Islam.” He is offering this as instruction for Muslims in his day; he seems to have no idea that this verse doesn’t apply to them.

Neither does Ibn Kathir. He writes that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191

So there you are, Mr. Alnatour: the Qur’an calling for the murder of those who are innocent, except for the crime of being “idolaters” – a “crime” that requires earthly punishment only in the Qur’an.

And there’s more:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29

The “People of the Book” are Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The verse doesn’t provide any reason why they should be fought and made to submit to the Muslims except that they are People of the Book and don’t acknowledge Islam. Here again, you might consider them not innocent on that basis, but I hope you don’t, as I’m sure you would agree that people may differ on key questions in good faith.

Ibn Juzayy, however, does believe that the People of the Book should be fought simply because they are not Muslims. He says that this verse is “a command to fight the People of the Book” and explains that they must be fought because of their “denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah” and the words of the Christians, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’” (cf. Qur’an 9:30). He adds that Muslims must also fight them “because they consider as lawful carrion, blood, pork, etc.” and because “they do not enter Islam.” 

So the Qur’an says that the People of the Book must be fought because they believe differently from the Muslims. But that is not a crime. These people are innocent.

The Qur’an says it’s ok to commit acts of terror

“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)

Now, Mr. Alnatour (may I call you Omar?), I know what you’ll say here: this is Allah saying he will terrorize the unbelievers, not commanding the Muslims to do so. Fair enough, although I can’t help but recall that the Qur’an also says: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands” (9:14). So if Allah is punishing the unbelievers by the hands of the believers, might part of that punishment involve casting terror into the hearts of the unbelievers? And that’s what terrorism is all about, right?

And yes, there is still more. “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)

Strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy. Now you no doubt have some explanation for this, Mr. Alnatour, but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers

So there you have it. Not just one verse, but four, and I have plenty more. You don’t have to pay me $40,000 even though I fulfilled your requirements four times over; I’ll take the $10,000, and thank you very much for your generosity. I must say that I very much enjoyed your article in which you made this offer, “Why Muslims Should Never Have To Apologize for Terrorism,” if it is proper to say that one enjoyed such a lamentable tale as your own. It is lamentable to read about how your wife screams at you and your children hate you for matters beyond your control, and that then on top of that, Infidels have the temerity to want you to do something about Islamic terrorism beyond issuing pro forma condemnations. 

My mind goes back, however, to those who were murdered by Islamic terrorists recently in Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino, and so many other places. I’m sure you would agree that the suffering of their families far exceeds that of Muslims who must suffer Infidels asking them (quite patiently, for over fourteen years now since 9/11) to clean their own house. I do hope that you will think a bit about them, and about your Qur’an. Instead of obfuscating its contents, as you’re writing out my check, you could do us all a favor by starting to ponder some strategies about how to limit the capacity of your holy book to incite murder and bloodshed. In light of my confidence that you will do that, I very much look forward to your next article.

With cordial best wishes from your fellow human being,

Robert Spencer

Brussels Terrorist Attack: “One Man Had Lost Both Legs And There Was A Policeman With A Totally Mangled Leg”

This is sickening and it was totally preventable – three decades ago.

Now, Belgium’s demographic has been irreversibly altered by the influx of Muslims and jihad is not going to go away anytime soon.

Here’s the update:

Victims lay in pools of blood as the smoke cleared to reveal a scene of horror after twin explosions ripped through the main terminal at Brussels Airport, witnesses said.

The blasts smashed the windows of the departure hall and sent ceiling tiles shattering to the floor.

“A man shouted a few words in Arabic and then I heard a huge blast,” airport baggage security officer Alphonse Lyoura, who still had blood on his hands following the explosion, told AFP.

He said there was another explosion about two minutes later.

“I helped at least six or seven wounded people. We took out some bodies that were not moving. It was total panic everywhere,” Mr Lyoura said.

“I saw people lying on the ground covered in blood who were not moving.

“At least six or seven people’s legs were totally crushed. A lot of people lost limbs.

“One man had lost both legs and there was a policeman with a totally mangled leg.”

Witness and Belgian David Crunelle, 36, was at the airport to catch a flight to Japan.

I said hello [to my wife], we took the elevator and in the elevator we heard the first bomb. The second exploded just when we got off. We ran away to an emergency exit.

Witness Jean-Pierre Herman

“An explosion happened in the terminal for the US departures. I think it was American Airlines terminal. Two explosions, [with] like two or three seconds between the two explosions. Everything went dark,” he told 7.30.

“There was a lot of people injured. Instantly, everybody, they started screaming and crying a lot, exiting — the people from the airport and from the airline companies — everybody went out without knowing what to do but it went well.”

Follow the live blog for up to date information on the explosions at Brussels Airport and metro station.

‘I think we are very lucky’

Another witness, Peter Presnell, said his plane landed on the tarmac at Brussels airport just as the explosions went off.

“When we first got here, they advised us that there was an explosion in the terminal and then they subsequently advised that there were two bombs had detonated inside the terminal,” he told the ABC.

“We could see the people being evacuated from the building and plus we could see a little bit of smoke rising above the terminal area as well.”

Another witness, Jean-Pierre Herman, met his wife at the airport, having gone to collect her after her flight arrived from Thailand.

“My wife just arrived,” Mr Herman told AFP.

“I said hello, we took the elevator and in the elevator we heard the first bomb.

“The second exploded just when we got off. We ran away to an emergency exit. I think we are very lucky.”

British journalist Charlotte McDonald-Gibson, who lives in Brussels, said there had been “total confusion” at the airport, where she was having breakfast before a flight.

“Suddenly staff rushed in and said we have to leave,” she said.

“They rushed out and into the main terminal A departures building. Nobody knew what was going on.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/witnesses-describe-moments-after-brussels-airport-explosions/7268392

Islamic Terrorism In Brussels: Muslims Murder 34, Injure 200+, Blow Up Airport, Nobody Surprised Anymore

Just another day in multicultural Europe.

A string of explosions has rocked Brussels Airport and a city metro station, killing at least 13 people and injuring more than 30 others, prompting Belgium to raise its terror threat to the maximum level.
Key points:

Two blasts hit Brussels Airport, followed by explosion at metro station

At least 13 people dead, all public transport shut down

Follow all the latest developments live

Two explosions hit the international departures lounge at the airport’s Zaventem terminal. It is thought one was set off by a suicide bomber near the American Airlines counter.

A short time later a third blast hit the Maelbeek metro station, near the European Union’s main buildings, just as commuters were making their way to work in rush hour.

The explosions occurred four days after the arrest in Brussels of Salah Abdeslam, the prime surviving suspect in November’s attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

Follow our live blog for all the latest developments in Brussels.

Brussels’ public transport network was shut down after the blasts and residents were warned to stay inside.

There were chaotic scenes at the airport as passengers fled in panic, with a thick plume of smoke rising from the main terminal building.

The blasts smashed the windows of the departure hall and sent ceiling tiles shattering to the floor.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/brussels-airport-rocked-by-two-explosions/7268106

A Few Nazi Extremists Ruined It For All The Good Nazis Out There

No one believes that (even though there is actually some truth to it) so why have so many people been suckered into the Muslim version to the extreme extent that every act of Muslim violence and terrorism is perceived as unrelated to Islam?

I regularly receive a newsletter written by a female friend who is a professor of philosophy in Canada. Her most recent newsletter dealt with the apparent discrepancy between how “Joe Public” viewed Muslims versus how Nazis were perceived, and what it revealed about the nature of the modern psyche.

The case of the Nazis

In the mind of the overwhelming majority of people today, all Nazis without exception are directly linked to the Final Solution, to the slaughter of the Jews, the Gypsies and of homosexuals and ultimately to the extermination camps. Nobody in their right mind would dare to suggest it might have been the fault of a few Nazi extremists whose actions gave a bad name to a political set of ideas which might have otherwise been viewed as quite respectable. All Nazis are tarred with the same brush: all shared the same ideology, the same set of beliefs, all had a hand in it and all were guilty of a horrendous crime.

My friend rightly reminded her readers that the Final Solution was only fully conceptualised and implemented in the year 1942, that the Nazi regime kept a tight lid on their plans, and that the existence of a police state made it very difficult for information to be circulated. There was at that time no Facebook on which to post video-clips of SS soldiers herding the inmates into the death camps, and no Internet to publish photos of grinning torturers in the process of putting their victims to death.

It is therefore perfectly plausible that a good number of Nazis weren’t in the know and remained ignorant of what was happening in the extermination camps masquerading as concentration camps.

This does not mean that they were either philo-Semitic or great lovers of democracy, but it does render the equation of Nazi = Holocaust rather moot, as not all Nazis were party to the extermination plan. It is, therefore, within the realm of possibility that amongst those opportunistic individuals who joined the party to further their social or professional standing, not all were monsters.

The conclusion drawn is that not all Nazis were killers and that, had they been privy to the real darkness at the heart of their ideology, many would probably have turned away in disgust and revulsion.

We might have called these “moderates” or “reformed-Nazis”, whilst the rest of them, those who could quietly contemplate unspeakable horrors and still remain faithful to the Nazi party were complicit in the crime, far past any possible redemption and as guilty as they come.

Muslims and a case of double standards

The way Muslims are perceived is exactly the other way round. Even though all Muslims, including each and every Taliban and each and every killer from the Islamic State, belong part and parcel to the same ideological core set of beliefs, (i.e Islam), which is characterised by the worship of the same Book (the Koran), the same man as an example to follow (Mohammed), the same common law (sharia), we are told in no uncertain terms that we must not on any account let some rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.

To be totally honest, I do agree with this point of view. I always like to remind people in the audience when I am giving a lecture that generalisations always lead to falsehoods and unjust prejudices, and that one mustn’t conflate what people think and what they are. Individuals are not equivalent to their ideology, and ideas aren’t people.

What made me think long and hard is the difference in treatment when we start comparing the Nazis with our current set of Muslims: we are ordered to not lump all Muslims together, or as the French put it “Padamalgam”[1], which freezes our powers of thinking and then forbids us to question those Muslims who are currently living in our societies in accordance to their obedience to Islamic doctrine.

Likewise, this injunction to “never ever lump together” aims to force us to automatically absolve any Muslim who has not committed a violent act from any guilt by association, even moral guilt.

Ideology does not equal the man; nonetheless adherence to it remains a conscious, deliberate act which engages individual responsibility

I obviously do not mean to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of the Islamic State, or that they they may have killed somebody or are planning to at some point in the future. What we must ask ourselves is this: in the name of what exactly are we suppose to refrain from asking these people whom we are told are our fellow citizens, to clarify their position as to their obedience to Islamic ideology? An Islamic ideology which, as anybody who is honest enough would be hard pressed to deny, all criminals who slaughter, rape and enslave in the name of Islam have shared throughout history.

We also owe it to ourselves to ask in whose name we should accept without any further questioning those “This is not Islam” retorts, which are an insult to our intelligence and a slap in the face of tangible reality, whenever heinous crimes and intolerable behaviours are indulged in in the name of Islam.

Disingenuous excuses must stop and responsibilities must be assumed

Why, exactly, should we carry on accepting the premise that Muslims are ignorant of the tenets of Islam, that they cannot know its content? Is the objective and unchanging[2] doctrine of Islam and the behaviours that are allowed or proscribed by it totally unknowable?

Of course not! What do you think they teach in Islamic universities? How would their imams otherwise know and teach their own doctrine?

The political, discriminatory and violent nature of Islam is a solidly established fact. What a relentless process of disinformation aimed to sell us as a “religion just like any others” finally revealed its true colours to all unbiased observers: Islam is, at its core, a totalitarian ideology.

The “spiritual dimension” found in this ideology should not divert attention from its true nature; specific mystical belief systems, books, supreme leaders and the project of a type of society for the entire humanity were also to be found in Nazism and the Chinese brand of communism.

Why should we continue to accept, as a given, that those Muslims living in our countries must not be under the obligation to learn the contents of the Islamic doctrine, in the light of what is happening in the world today, and then draw the obvious conclusions: should they abide by it or not?

The Muslims currently living in Western societies cannot, in any way, shape or form, be compared to the Germans of yesteryear. They can freely access the history of Islam and its long retinue of horrors and unspeakable crimes, or read books describing sharia law or the life of the man they are supposed to model their lives on.

In contrast with the Germans who lived in a police state, they are free to reject without risk a creed whose tenets are antithetical to human freedom and dignity.

It would be quite condescending as well as patronising to view those Muslims who live in the West as being incapable of getting hold of the proper information and of making a responsible choice.

The West offers Muslims the amazing opportunity to free themselves from the shackles of Muslim ideology and become free human beings, respectful of the natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

Who would then carry on insisting that Muslims cannot freely choose their own destiny, decide where their loyalty lies and assume responsibility for the choices that they make?
Why do we insist on humouring them so as to not offend their supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?

Today we share our society with people who may or may not adhere to an ideology that’s extremely violent, discriminatory and destructive of our way of life. Knowing where these people stand is now a question of survival.

And in view of the consequences that necessarily follow this ideology when it is put into practise in the real world, why exactly should we be satisfied with being shrugged off, with getting an ambiguous reply accompanied with the usual protests about a so-called stigmatisation of their faith?

Adherence or non-adherence to Islamic ideology and to sharia law must no longer be a question unasked and unspoken. This question, left unasked, is the breeding ground which will beget chaos and the tearing asunder of our society. And today, people die for this on French soil.

To finally ask the question that has, up till now, been left unsaid is to force a choice, and so choosing means to renounce one of the choices.

It means either:

Disown those who adhere to Islamic ideology, to sharia law and the inevitable violence and oppression that follow in their wake,

or

Abandon the idea of being part of Western societies, which are based upon respect for liberty and the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.

There can be no compromise, no meeting part way, no grey areas: that time has come and gone.

Our duty to keep our societies safe gives us the right to ask Muslims the following question: “Where do you stand: for or against sharia law?” We mustn’t let ourselves be fobbed off.

The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as today’s Nazis.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/nazis-versus-muslims/#more-39127

Austria, Germany: One In Two Refugees Facing Criminal Charges, Refugees Commit Minimum 50% Of All Crimes

This is no surprise to anyone.

Last week we reported that based on newly released statistics from the German government, 45% of all crimes come from Merkel’s new “refugees.” Well, Germany’s southern neighbor, Austria, has confirmed Germany’s conclusions through its own statistics. According to their numbers, a minimum of 50% of all crimes are committed by these new “refugees.” Not only that, but Austria has proved these numbers are consistent going back as far as 2003.

The mathematical statistics bear out what everybody else knows from lived experience: the refugees are the source of the problems.

From the Kroner:

Statistics from the Federal Criminal Agency show that in the period 2003 to 2014 one of of every two asylum seekers had criminal charges filed against them. In this it is striking that most of the crimes were committed by people from Algeria (155 per 100 asylum applicants), Georgia (151) and Nigeria (129). According to a “Presse” report, among Syrians the number is around 8 – however the year 2015, in which the major flow of refugees from Syria set in, is not included. 80% of the crimes were committed by men.

From 2003 to 2014 the annual clear-up rate for crimes in Austria was between 40 and 45 per cent. In three to five per cent of cases, asylum seekers were determined to be the perpetrators. That is relatively high as the share of asylum seekers in the entire population – depending on year – was only around 0.1 to 0.3%. The statistics only include migrants who also receive basic provision pay-outs from the Austrian state.

http://shoebat.com/2016/03/14/first-german-now-austrian-government-admits-that-minimum-50-of-all-crimes-come-from-the-new-refugees/

Obama Sure Goes Out Of His Way To Protect Muslims, America’s Wellbeing Not So Much

This was kinda obvious in 2008 and despite the catastrophically long list of Obama disasters, I still hear Christians reflect positively on the man.

I even heard someone call him a “statesman” but, of course, no specific policies or actions  were identified in support of such an title. 

Obama has truly conned an entire generation of people through smooth talking and guest appearances on Saturday Night Live. 

It could only happen because so many people are completely ignorant of politics apart from what is popular as reported by the mainstream media.

It’s the reason so many people hate Trump.

And please, please, please do not take that to mean there are no reasons to think Trump could be an incredibly dangerous president – there is a solid chance he would be an absolute disaster and he’s right down there with Hillary on so many levels.

What it does mean is that the next time someone tells you they hate Trump, ask them for three policy promises or three personal values Trump has that would make him a bad president.

I’ll give you the only two that really matter – he is fine with murdering children and with demolishing marriage. I mean if you destroy the family unit, what the heck will good economic policy or national defence secure a country that is rotting from within?

Let all the Trump haters fill you in on the last one – if they can!

But back to Obama, who has already achieved the status of “worst president ever”.

Now it’s not for ignorance – that’s for sure.

We know this because Obama has spent his non-golfing days in office (surprisingly few, apparently) working very hard to serve and protect certain groups (Muslims, homosexuals, illegal immigrants) while simultaneously vilifying and destroying others (Christians, the middle class, white people, gun owners, any of his critics)

Let’s focus in on the special protection afforded to Muslims by Obama:

For the past seven years, I’ve contended that Barack Hussein Obama cares more about his Muslim brothers and sisters than he does about the American people.

Let me start by reminding you about Obama’s deliberate failure to secure and protect the American border with Mexico, allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter our country and take our jobs. Instead of carrying out his sworn duty to the citizens of America, he defies the US Constitution and federal law by allowing illegals to not only remain in our country, but to obtain work permits, driver’s licenses and even vote in upcoming elections.

Various state governors and others have informed Obama about the number of violent gang members illegally entering our country but he ignores their warnings. When any of them are detained, the federal bureaucracy ends up releasing them to walk our neighborhoods and victimize more American citizens.

Additionally, ranchers along the border regularly report finding evidence that a number of Muslims are illegally crossing the border. Who knows how many of them are would be terrorists. In the past 6 months there have been a number of single Muslim men arrested trying to enter the country.

Now consider what took place with our troops in the Middle East. Obama ordered all Christian symbolism to be removed from public display, but the same order was not issued to Muslim members of the military.

When some US troops burned some defaced and destroyed Qurans, Obama condemned them. He never mentioned that they Qurans had been defaced and destroyed by Muslim prisoners, not Americans. Nor did he care that a number of defaced and destroyed Bibles were also burned at the same time. Obama only cared about his fellow Muslims.

When Muslim terrorists behead American prisoners, Obama symbolically condemns it. When some American soldiers urinate on the corpses of Muslim insurgents, they are court martialed.

Obama fully supported and armed the Muslim terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood for their takeover of Egypt. With sufficient evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood was a terrorist organization who was committing genocide against Egypt’s Coptic Christians, they froze all funds and weapon intended for the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama defied Congress and illegally released $50 million and 20 F-16 fighter jets. Now there are factions of the Muslim Brotherhood forming a political party here in the US, thanks to Obama.

Don’t forget that Obama returned 5 Taliban leaders to the Taliban in exchange for 1 American deserter. He’s also blamed US troops for provoking the Taliban to attack them.

In early 2015, the White House hosted the summit ‘Countering Violent Extremism.’ Obama had the summit open with an Islamic prayer and quotation from the Quran. The prayer and subsequent words from Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble, President of the World Peace Organization in Minneapolis, Minnesota actually supported and justified Islamic extremism.

I wrote earlier about the fact that the Obama administration had prevented Department of Homeland Security screeners from fully vetting Muslim immigrants which allowed for Tashfeen Malik to enter the country and take part in the San Bernardino mass shooting.

Now Judicial Watch reports that they have received a number of documents via the Freedom of Information Act that proves that the Obama administration ordered the terrorist watch list to be scrubbed of nearly a thousand names. They report: 

“Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 183 pages of documents from the Department of Homeland Security revealing that the Obama administration scrubbed the law enforcement agency’s ‘Terrorist Screening Database’ in order to protect what it considered the civil rights of suspected Islamic terrorist groups. The documents appear to confirm charges that Obama administration changes created a massive ‘hands off’ list. Removed data from the terrorist watch list could have helped prevent the San Bernardino terrorist attack. 

The new documents were produced in response to a Judicial Watch February 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on February 13, 2015, (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:15-cv-00222)) for:

1. A copy of the [Department of Homeland Security] Office of Inspector General report regarding, concerning, or related to a ‘hands off list’ purportedly maintained by [Department of Homeland Security], US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and/or US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) used to allow certain individuals to enter the United States, who had previously been denied entry to the United States or been made to undergo secondary screening by CBP based on suspicion of terrorism ties.

2. Any and all records of communication to or from [Department of Homeland Security] Inspector General Charles Edwards from May 31, 2014 regarding the aforementioned OIG report.

On May 6, 2014, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) released internal Department of Homeland Security emails revealing an alleged terrorist ‘hands off’ list allowing individuals with potential terrorist ties into the United States. Allegations by former Customs and Border Patrol Officer Philip Haney spurred Senator Grassley’s and other congressional investigations.

The new Homeland Security documents confirm the modification of nearly 1,000 terrorist suspect reports. The September 25, 2013, Department of Homeland Security Inspector General memorandum regarding Haney’s terror watch list entries, discloses that the Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office and Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ‘determined that individuals could only be “‘watchlisted’ based on an association with a known or suspected terrorist already ‘watchlisted’… not based on their affiliation with [REDACTED] (or any other [REDACTED] organization.’”

One has to wonder exactly whose side is Obama on – Americas or our Muslim enemies? His actions have done more to protect his Muslim friends than he has to protect American citizens. I have refused to call him president for several years for this very reason and I will continue to refuse to connect his name with the presidency for as long as I live. There is still no proof that he is truly an American citizen or ever met the qualifications to run for or hold the office he currently usurps. I believe he is a traitor to our nation, our Constitution and to the American people and as such deserves to be charged, arrested, tried, convicted and given the harshest punishment possible under the law.

http://constitution.com/more-evidence-obama-protects-his-muslim-terrorists-buddies-more-than-he-protects-americas-citizens/