Wednesday, 16 December 2015

Claim: Lebanese Refugee Camps Run By ISIS

David Cameron visiting a refugee camp in Lebanon earlier this year

Via The Express:

The Prime Minister has come under under fire after the International Development Committee, which is investigating the Syrian refugee crisis, received evidence that ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups were running the camps within the war-torn country, but also in Lebanon and Jordan where the majority of the 20,000 heading for the UK are currently based. 
A report by Barnabas Fund, an organisation which helps persecuted Christians across the globe, said Mr Cameron was told there were Islamic extremists within the refugee camps for displaced Syrians in Lebanon when he visited them in September, weeks BEFORE any of the refugees began coming to the UK... 
The Barnabus report said: "In September 2015 Lebanon’s Education minister Elias Bou Saab told British Prime Minister David Cameron during a tour of refugee camps that some Syrian refugees travelling to Europe were Islamists, adding that this was also the case among those living in refugee camps."

If these claims are true, then aside from being a further indication of David Cameron's cluelessness about the jihad threat,
they are validation YET AGAIN of Donald Trump's concerns over jihadist infiltration of the refugee influx, and confirmation that ALL Muslim immigration is inherently unsafe. Even if there are no ISIS operatives hiding among the refugees, that does not mean that there could not be sympathisers or lone wolves, and NO amount of vetting will eliminate this possibility.

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

I "Reel" At The BBC's Stupidity And Bias

It is hilarious to me when I see far-Left types - the Twitterati who post social media lies about Islam in the wake of every jihad terror attack - claim spuriously that the BBC and other mainstream media outlets "demonise" Islam and try to portray it and its followers as extremist, while ignoring moderates.

On Planet Reality, the BBC steadfastly maintains the line that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists, and that even at the same time as Muslims commit terror attacks that leave hundreds of people dead, they are also simultaneously victims of Islamophobia and racism.

Case in point: Its piece today, entitled "US Muslims reel at Trump supporters' hostility". It is a massive exercise in drumming up fear of "waycists" for absolutely no good reason. The article is headed by a photo of a Muslim woman in a hijab looking pensively out of a window, with a caption telling us she has "been subject to abuse" on bus journeys in Las Vegas.

What kind of abuse, you ask? "I get people who don't want to sit next to me, people who whisper things like, 'Does she have a bomb on her, is she going to harm us?'" she says.

In other words, people are understandably afraid of Muslims getting on public transport or appearing in crowded spaces, because they know that there is a risk, however slight, that some Muslims might go on a killing spree or self-detonate. I perfectly understand that being subjected to this kind of suspicion is not pleasant for Talibah Abdul-Wahid, but it does not equal "abuse", and nor is it entirely irrational, given recent history.

The article next quotes from an imam who believes it is unreasonable to expect Muslims to "publicly restate a commitment to peace" after each fresh terror attack. The imam, Fateen Seifullah (his surname means Sword of Allah in Arabic, in case you're wondering), says: "It is just inconsistent...we're not mentioning it when people are being gunned down by white supremacists, by people with distorted ideologies in this country who go into the theatres, who go into the schools, who go into the abortion clinic, who went into the church." The Beeb then adds: "In other words, why are such killers rarely referred to as Christian extremists, even when they claim to be driven by Biblical teachings?"

Who are these people? Certainly there have been plenty of non-Muslim Americans who have carried out appalling murders. Some have been white supremacists and racists. Some may have even been Christians, and acting in the name of Christianity. But where are the ones who claim to be driven by Biblical teachings, in the same way that Islamic jihadists regularly point to chapter and verse of the Qur'an and hadith to justify mass murder? Where is the national or global movement of such people, and what threat do they demonstrably pose to anybody? Is there a common ideological thread between these disparate attackers? Do they all have the same goals or motivations, and is there a substantial support network for them?

The BBC doesn't answer these questions, because it doesn't want every rational person in the Western world to shout out the obvious answers.

Anyway, the binding theme of the piece is Donald Trump's call to place a moratorium on Muslim immigration, which I maintain was not based on racism and bigotry towards Muslims, but was simply a common sense call for action in light of the fact that screening for terrorists has so far proven ineffective, and may continue to cost innocent Americans their lives. But in its quest to present Trump's words as just the lead-in to the next Holocaust, the Beeb does manage to find a crazy woman who thinks that we should bomb mosques in America. Such a call is utterly reprehensible, of course, and I hope that if Trump sees it, he condemns it, but even her explanation as to why she thinks we should do this carries with it a kernel of truth: "You don't know what they [Muslims] are. You don't know if they are bad people or good people."

Exactly! There is no reliable way to tell the difference between a peaceful Muslim and an extremist until the latter begins sawing through your neck (especially when the extremist is commanded by his religion to pretend that he is a moderate right up until that moment), and Trump's statements were a reflection of this.

The article just finds time at the end to go back to the hijabi Muslim girl saying: "Before I leave to school, I'm always worried, is this going to be the last time I'm going to go home? Is this going to be the last time I see my family?"

Such fears are hysterically overblown. FBI statistics consistently show that anti-Muslim hate crimes - especially of the lethal variety - are relatively rare compared to hate crimes against Jews, gays and even white people in America. They are so rare, in fact, that Muslims sometimes just make them up. In light of the 9/11 attacks, the Fort Hood shootings, the Boston bombings, the San Bernadino attacks, and so many others, I'd say non-Muslims are far more justified in feeling scared for their lives every time they go out.

It's morbidly apt, then, that when they do, Muslims accuse them of "Islamophobia". People are indeed becoming increasingly afraid of Islam. I wonder why.

Tuesday, 8 December 2015

Why Trump Is Right About Banning Muslim Immigration

Donald Trump is a blustering oaf, but in his recommendation that the United States (and hopefully all Western countries) impose a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, he is absolutely right.

In light of the fact that three of the Paris jihadis entered Europe posing as refugees, and in light of the fact that ISIS has threatened they would send more, and the fact that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernadino jihadis, passed a background check by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, it is simply common sense to close the border and not expose the country to further potential risk.

As this superb, sane article makes clear in relation to similar bills being proposed by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, the Founding Fathers of the United States understood that the people of their country have a right, through their elected representatives, to allow or not allow any group of people they wish to settle in America, and this includes the right to not import hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people who identify with an ideology that stands diametrically opposed to American values.

Are Trump's critics - who now include David Cameron - really prepared to allow their citizens to be brutally murdered on their own streets, just because to do otherwise would appear "intolerant"? What have we become as a civilisation when this kind of suicide seems so reasonable to so many?

Those who criticise Trump's position have offered no tangible alternative, no way in which we can reliably vet Muslim immigrants entering Western countries, or distinguish in any clear way between a "moderate" and an "extremist" at point of entry. They fail to understand - willfully - that this is not an issue of discrimination or "blaming all Muslims", but a national security issue, and the national security implications of importing Muslims en masse without having any idea of their allegiances and suitability for integration is the definition of insanity.

The left-wing icon Franklin D. Roosevelt had his own understanding of how to deal with outside threats within the United States, issuing proclamations treating German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants in America as “enemy aliens,” slapping curfews on them, registering them, taking away everything from their guns to their binoculars to their right to travel to their jobs. That may be considered a step too far in this day and age, but Donald Trump's suggestion to simply not allow any more barbarians inside the gate is in the same spirit, and while he could never make a remotely competent POTUS, he is 100% correct on this issue.

Monday, 7 December 2015

The Guardian Thinks I Am Just As Likely To Become A Terrorist As Tashfeen Malik

Tashfeen and her husband, who both had nothing to do with Islam

In an article by Jon Boone today regarding the San Bernadino jihad terror shooting, the Guardian informs us that "Anyone looking for clues for why Tashfeen Malik turned from a young mother into an Islamic State-supporting mass killer capable of slaughtering 14 people with her husband will struggle to find anything in the picture that has so far emerged of the 29-year-old Pakistani."

The article quotes one source saying, “She’s a typical small-town, educated, middle-class conservative.”

Well, so am I, so I guess I could easily become a terrorist, too, I suppose? I mean, I'm really no different from her, am I?

Oh, wait:

...she regularly attended a women’s religious group that promotes an austere form of Islam... 
“My brother’s family cut off all relations with us 30 years over an inheritance feud,” said Malik’s step-aunt Hifza Bibi, a schoolteacher. “They converted and started to insult us, saying we do not believe in the oneness of Allah because of our love for saints.”... 
“She always wore a veil"... 
Classmates said Malik became increasingly strict and “hardline” about her religious life during her time at the university...

I haven't attended any women's groups that teach an austere form of Islam, or cut off relations with my family because they do not believe in the oneness of Allah, or always worn a veil, or become hardline about my religious life during my university days - maybe that's what's different.

In any case, the one thing you can be sure of is that the Guardian definitely does not want you to think that this has anything to do with Islam, or that increased Islamic piety might potentially lead to incidents like the San Bernadino shooting, since we all know that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and therefore increased piety will only lead to more peace and love and flowers and bunny rabbits and stuff.

For a bit of context on the cultural milieu in which Tashfeen Malik was raised, Boone helpfully adds that "In 2013, the British Council surveyed Malik’s generation of 18- to 29-year-olds and found 38% wanted to live under strict religious laws – higher than democracy or military rule."

Which religious laws would those be? What religion would those of "Malik's generation" who were surveyed be? That doesn't matter, you rabid Islamophobe - she weren't no Muslim, bruv. She was just a middle-class conservative, like so many of us are.

This Guardian article may as well have begun, "Anyone looking for clues for why Tashfeen Malik turned from a young mother into an Islamic State-supporting mass killer capable of slaughtering 14 people with her husband must necessarily overlook the fact that she was a devout Muslim. Only Islamophobes care about that. You know the type: your typical small-town, middle-class conservative."

Thursday, 3 December 2015

Jihad in California?

By now it seems to be becoming increasingly clear that the terrible mass shooting in San Bernadino, California, yesterday was not in fact yet another example of a crazy white weirdo with an assault rifle going on an attention-grabbing killing spree, but an Islamic jihad attack.

While the media fixates on American gun control laws, the identities and background of the main shooter appear to be slipping under the radar somewhat.

The main suspect, named as Syed Farook, was described as "very religious" by his father, who added: "He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim."

We are told by one of Farook's co-workers that the shooter "grew out his beard several months ago", most likely as a token of renewed Islamic piety, given the importance of the beard in Islamic religious observance.

He had a Twitter account, and while he had never posted anything, he was following a number of pages promoting Islam, Palestinian and Syrian jihadists, and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Farook was also, according to CNN, "apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism".

Police also discovered 12 pipe bombs at the home of the suspects, suggesting that the attack was more planned than spontaneous.

And yet despite all of this, the authorities and the media are of course tying themselves in knots to find any other motive they possibly can for this - anything but Islam. Hilariously, one analyst even referred to the shooting as "a kind of hybrid workplace jihad", suggesting that Farook was simply spontaneously angry with some co-workers despite the extensive planning that clearly went into the attack.

But such is the world we live in now. I expect we will learn much more about what motivated Syed Farook and his siblings to commit this vile deed in the coming days, but regardless it's worth noting that for the world's media and political leaders, as well as a distressingly large proportion of the public, even when the perpetrators say it has everything to do with actually has nothing to do with Islam.