A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that
62% of Likely U.S. Voters believe most Christians living in the Islamic
world are treated unfairly because of their religion. Just 17% disagree,
while 21% more are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
...
By comparison, 39% feel most Muslims living in the United States are treated unfairly because of their religion. That’s up from 31% last year and is the highest finding in surveys to date.
A plurality (46%) still believes Muslims are not treated unfairly because of their faith, while 15% more are not sure.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats, however, believe most Muslims in
this country are mistreated, a view shared by only 22% of Republicans
and 39% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Fewer
Democrats (47%) think most Christians are mistreated in the Islamic
world, compared to 76% of GOP voters and 64% of unaffiliateds.
And for those who think women are smarter... they're not - at least when they're Democrats.
Women are more likely than men to think most American Muslims are
mistreated here but less likely to believe Christians are mistreated in
the Islamic world.
Unbelievable....
By the way, note that no one talks about mistreatment of Jews despite study after study that shows that attacks on Jews due to their religion far exceed attacks on persons of any other religion.
Linda Sarsour is an energetic purveyor of the “Islamophobia” myth, and has hysterically claimed that “Muslim kids” are being “executed” in the United States. She was instrumental in prevailing upon de Blasio
to end legal and necessary surveillance in Muslim communities in New
York. She is also a frequent visitor to the Obama White House, and has
claimed that the jihad underwear bomber was a CIA agent — part of what she claims is a U.S. war against Islam.
She is a practiced exploiter of the “hate” smear against foes of jihad
terror and Islamic supremacism, and has never apologized for using the Islamic honor murder of Shaima Alawadi to spread lies about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims in America.
She is also an enthusiastic supporter of the “Palestinian” jihad
against Israel. Given the general support for that jihad among Leftists,
and the hard-Left tilt of the de Blasio regime in New York, it is not
surprising that her hate-filled endeavors are taxpayer funded. But it is
scandalous nonetheless: a grim sign of the times.
That would explain her disdain for Rubio and Cruz, wouldn't it?
And Trump's failure to repudiate her endorsement has to make you wonder whether he's really as pro-Israel as he says he is.
One of the fund-raising groups that had connections to North Carolina was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which formerly was based in Richardson, Texas. The Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets named the charity a specially designated terrorist organization and shut it down in 2001.
The foundation was a front organization for Hamas and sponsored offices and fund-raisers nationwide, including in Charlotte. The foundation was one of the largest Islamic charities in the United States, raising about $13 million annually.
But the filmmakers use the Islamic
symbol of a crescent moon and star to spell out “Obsession.” And the DVD
offers mostly frightening images of Muslim leaders and crowds,
comparing them to Hitler and the Nazis. Its on-screen pundits include
anti-Muslim figures, including Walid Shoebat, who has said that “Islam
is not the religion of God – Islam is the devil.”
Also included: A grisly excerpt from an anti-Semitic TV show in which the execution of a young boy is dramatized.
Local Muslims criticized the Observer for agreeing to distribute the DVD.
“That film definitely is
something that would be considered hate speech,” said Rose Hamid,
president of Muslim Women of the Carolinas. “What if somebody put an
(advertising) insert in saying Hitler was right? Would you carry that? …
This is unacceptable.”
...
Notice the tag on her upper left shoulder. It is shaped in the image of the rub’ al-hizb,
which is a series of squares within squares used in Islamic
calligraphy. It has two meanings. The first is that it used as a visual
model for helping to recite the Quran. It is also known as the Al-Quds
star, since is represents Jerusalem and specifically, the Dome of the
Rock in Sunni Islam. It can be found on many Muslim flags, literary, and
architectural works throughout Islamic history.
However, what makes this particular example sickening is it is (a) pinned on her shoulder and (b) it is yellow. This
is likely a reference to the infamous Star or Cross patches, bands,
hoods, and other insignia that Muslims forced Jewish and Christian
dhimmis to wear as a sign of their second-class citizenship in Muslim
lands for centuries and was later adapted for use in 20th century German
for reasons we all know why:
Read the whole thing. Hamas is the 'Palestinian' branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Holy Land Foundation trial was about CAIR's support of Hamas.
One has to wonder whether Hamid was planted at the Trump rally or showed up on her own.
It's come to this: Socialist Bernie Sanders compares Holocaust to imaginary phobia
I want to remind you all that I live in a country where 'socialism' is (unfortunately) not a dirty word. But even we know the difference between the Holocaust and the anti-Semitism that gave rise to it, and the imaginary phobia known as 'Islamophobia.'
But in one of the most emotional moments of the night, George Mason
University senior Remaz Abdelgader stood up and demanded to know how
Sanders would address the rising tide of Islamophobia in the U.S. Her
voice breaking, she spoke of how hurt she feels when she hears anti-Muslim rhetoric from other candidates for president — including GOP frontrunners Ben Carson, who has said he doesn’t want a Muslim as president of the U.S.
“Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want
to create a change in this society,” she said. “I’m so tired of
listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I
should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my
country.”
Sanders insisted she join him on stage and gave her a hug as the crowd of a couple hundred stood and cheered.
Then, in response to her question, Sanders does something he rarely
does: he spoke personally about his Jewish faith and family history,
which includes losing relatives in the Holocaust, and said Americans
need to learn from that past. “If we stand for anything we have to stand
together and end all forms of racism in this country,” he said. “I will
lead that effort as president.”
It gets worse from there.
No people have been subject to greater amounts and more severe discrimination than Jews. Incidents of anti-Semitism throughout the West remain totally disproportionate to the number of Jews present in those countries. Comparing Holocaust level anti-Semitism to 'Islamophobia' is cheap populist grandstanding.
Ahmad, who is also a regular Ramadan dinner guest of President Obama,
asked the United Airlines flight attendant if she could have an
unopened can of Diet Coke. She flies enough to know that airlines are
running concessions on the cheap, and if you get a soda for free, you’re
not getting the whole thing. But when the attendant told her she
couldn’t have an unopened can, she flipped her headscarf.
According to CNN,
who evidently is soaking up all the allegedly bigoted tidbits of this
story, the attendant informed Ahmad that they are “unauthorized to give
unopened cans to people because they may use it as a weapon on the
plane.” The passenger let the employee know that she felt she was being
discriminated against, because the passenger across the aisle was given a
full, unopened can of beer.
That’s when things started to get really interesting. Not taking into
consideration that the guy with a beer paid an astronomical amount for
that in-flight brew and her cola was on the house, Ahmad called on the
support of other flyers. She ask if they had seen what just happened,
insinuating she was being targeted as a terrorist.
According to her Facebook post, the guy with a beer got in her face and said, “You Muslim, you need to shut the f— up.”
This is if we’re to believe a word this woman has to say on the
matter with no witnesses or cell phone footage to support her claim of
the conversation. “I felt the hate in his voice and his raging eyes,”
Ahmad wrote on Facebook while the plane was still in flight. “I can’t
help but cry … because I thought people would defend me and say
something. Some people just shook their heads in dismay.”
Boo. Hoo. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks she's lying. It would be interesting if the guy who bought the beer would come forward.
And please don't tell me she's going to start flying American between Chicago and Washington. I flew that route a couple of weeks ago, and despite my next-to-top-tier elite status was number 11 of 24 for an upgrade....
My first reaction to this Facebook post was "If Muslims are boycotting United, maybe I should start flying it." But on reading the post above in its entirety, I think it's made up. Come on - if you're posting from a flight where you've had a fight with a flight attendant, wouldn't you at least post some details about the flight? Origin? Destination? Flight number? United posted those details in an image that Tahera Ahmad posted here (post embedded below). I'm sure you'll all be shocked to discover that Ahmad is not just any Muslim.
The Facebook post went viral, and a #unitedfortahera hashtag
immediately began trending worldwide. Many tweeps have threatened to
boycott the airline until it issued Ahmad a formal apology.
According to a metro.co.uk report,
United responded to the incident by saying that they were "a company
that strongly supports diversity and inclusion, and we and our partners
do not discriminate against our employees or customers. We are reaching
out directly to Ms. Ahmad to get a better understanding of what occurred
during the flight. We are also discussing the matter that Ms. Ahmad
describes with Shuttle America, our regional partner that operated the
flight. We look forward to speaking with Ms. Ahmad and hope to have the
opportunity to welcome her back."
Next thing you know, they'll demand that United stop flying to Israel in return for removing their specious boycott.
My bet is that the whole story never happened. Has Al Sharpton taken it up yet?
Here's the second post:
I am truly dissapointed at the latest statement by United Airlines. Unfortunately United has dismissed my entire...
Posted by Tahera Ahmad on Sunday, May 31, 2015
I'll bet she's disappointed. She thought United would prostrate itself without first bothering to investigate whether the incident happened.
UPDATE 4:35 PM
Ms. Ahmad's Facebook account seems to have been taken down (or I've been blocked from it), but she posted the entire second Facebook post on Twitter. I'm embedding it below and will take a screen cap just in case.
I'll have more to say about the elections in the days ahead, but for
now let me offer a whole-hearted good riddance to Ed Miliband, the now
departed Labour leader who, in a desperate last-minute pander, offered
to "outlaw Islamophobia".
That was the British political establishment's contribution to a rough
couple of weeks for free speech, culminating in the attempted mass
murder in Garland, Texas.
That's what it was, by the way - although you might have difficulty telling that from the news coverage. The Washington Post offered the celebrated headline "Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas", while the Associated Press went with "Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths".
The media "narrative" of the last week is that some Zionist temptress
was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted
it to reveal her Mohammed thong - oops, my apologies, her Prophet
Mohammed thong (PBUH) - and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding
ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business.
It'll be a long time before you see "Washington Post Offers No
Apology for Attacking Target of Thwarted Attack" or "AP Says It Has No
Regrets After Blaming The Victim". The respectable class in the American
media share the same goal as the Islamic fanatics: They want to silence
Pam Geller. To be sure, they have a mild disagreement about the means
to that end - although even then you get the feeling, as with Garry
Trudeau and those dozens of PEN novelists' reaction to Charlie Hebdo,
that the "narrative" wouldn't change very much if the jihad boys had
got luckier and Pam, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and a dozen others
were all piled up in the Garland morgue.
If the American press were not so lazy and parochial, they would
understand that this was the third Islamic attack on free speech this
year - first, Charlie Hebdo in Paris; second, the Lars Vilks event in Copenhagen; and now Texas. The difference in the corpse count is easily explained by a look at the video of the Paris gunmen, or the bullet holes they put in the police car.
The French and Texan attackers supposedly had the same kind of weapons,
although one should always treat American media reports with a high
degree of skepticism when it comes to early identification of "assault
weapons" and "AK47s". Nonetheless, from this reconstruction,
it seems clear that the key distinction between the two attacks is that
in Paris they knew how to use their firepower and in Garland they
didn't. So a very cool 60-year-old local cop with nothing but his
service pistol advanced under fire and took down two guys whose heavier
firepower managed only to put a bullet in an unarmed security guard's
foot.
The Charlie Hebdo killers had received effective training
overseas - as thousands of ISIS recruits with western passports are
getting right now. What if the Garland gunmen had been as good as the
Paris gunmen? Surely that would be a more interesting question for the
somnolent American media than whether some lippy Jewess was asking for
it.
...
In Copenhagen, in Paris, in Garland, what's more important than the
cartoons and the attacks is the reaction of all the polite, respectable
people in society, which for a decade now has told those who do not
accept the messy, fractious liberties of free peoples that we don't
really believe in them, either, and we're happy to give them up -
quietly, furtively, incrementally, remorselessly - in hopes of a quiet
life. Because a small Danish newspaper found itself abandoned and alone,
Charlie Hebdo jumped in to support them. Because the Charlie Hebdo
artists and writers died abandoned and alone, Pamela Geller jumped in
to support them. By refusing to share the risk, we are increasing the
risk. It's not Pamela Geller who emboldens Islamic fanatics, it's all
the nice types - the ones Salman Rushdie calls the But Brigade. You've
heard them a zillion times this last week: "Of course, I'm personally,
passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But..."
And the minute you hear the "but", none of the build-up to it
matters. A couple of days before Garland, Canadian Liberal MP (and
former Justice Minister) Irwin Cotler announced his plan to restore
Section 13 - the "hate speech" law under which Maclean's and I
were dragged before the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and which, as
a result of my case, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada. At the
time Mr Cotler was fairly torn on the issue. We talked about it briefly
at a free-speech event in Ottawa at which he chanced to be present, and
he made vaguely supportive murmurings - as he did when we ran into each
other a couple of years later in Boston. Mr Cotler is Jewish and, even
as European "hate" laws prove utterly useless against the metastasizing
open Jew-hate on the Continent, he thinks we should give 'em one more
try. He's more sophisticated than your average But boy, so he uses a three-syllable word.
Not just 'not all it was cracked up to be,' but an out-and-out fake
In a post on Sunday, I referred to the 'Muslim peace ring' around an Oslo synagogue as 'not all it was cracked up to be.' In fact, it was even less than that. It turns out that the whole thing was an out-and-out fake. The 'peace ring' had about 20 Muslims, while the funeral for the Copenhagen terrorist drew 500 Muslims (Hat Tip: Jack W).
According to a local eyewitness, only about 20
or so Muslims formed the “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue. In
fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people
to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front
of the synagogue.
A local news outlet explained how the media got to its “1,300
Muslims” number. “According to police, there were 1300 persons present
in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians,” read a translated report from Osloby.no.
Demonstrators also reportedly chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” conflating criticism of Islam and hatred of Jews.
Photos pulled off of social media appear to corroborate the narrative that only twenty or so people formed the “peace ring.”
Multiple news outlets, including wire services for hundreds of news
sites, ran with the false narrative that 1,000 or more people–sometimes
all of them Muslim–formed the ring of peace outside of the Oslo
synagogue.
Today was the funeral for the alleged shooter, and police told the
BBC that between 600 and 700 attended. DR reports (as translated by
Google):
Several hundred people — many of them young men dressed
in big down jackets and with their faces covered — on Friday afternoon
in light rain collected at a grave at the Muslim cemetery in Brondby.
Up to half of the attendees, who were all men, had masked their faces
with jackets or scarves. More directed their index fingers toward the
sky, while others beat their chests with a clenched fist. Most were
silent.
Radical Islamist terrorists are butchering, burning and beheading their
victims in the name of Islam... But President Obama, seemingly unable to
confront our enemies in the Middle East
and Northern Africa, today turned from the awesome powers of the
presidency to his bully pulpit, to proselytize and persuade Americans to
embrace Muslims in America our president has it seems regressed to his
former role as a community organizer and taken up a new role as the
apologist-in-chief, as he concluded a White House meeting on countering
what he calls violent extremism...
NY Times wants to hear about minority experiences in Europe... but only if they're Muslims
If you're a minority in Europe, the New York Times is interested in hearing about your experiences this month. But only if you're a Muslim.
In the aftermath of the Paris attacks last week, the New York Times
is understandably interested in hearing about the experiences of
minorities in Europe these days. That is commendable. It’s just the kind
of journalism that sheds light on everyday life of people facing
adversity the world over. It’s important and informative and insightful,
and we applaud it, and look forward to reading it.
Scratch that. Actually, the Times is obsessively interested in the experiences of only one minority group in Europe: Muslims.
To that end, the paper has issued a call to its Muslim readers abroad to share their experiences.
“The deadly attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French newspaper that lampooned Islam, and a kosher grocery store
heightened tensions in Europe, where the increasing radicalization of
young Muslims appears to coincide with a growing anti-Islamic
sentiment.”
It’s hard to understand the paper’s continuing obsession, in their surveys and on their editorial page,
with the mortal threat of “Islamophobia”—a dubious term that lumps
together actual crimes with thought-crimes, like reprinting the cover of
Charlie Hebdo—when the people being harassed, beaten, and murdered in
Europe these days are Jews. This is especially true when the people
doing the harassing, beating and killing are Islamists.
The Times changed its headline during the day on Thursday. But the bottom line is that they're really only interested in hearing from Muslims. And the stupid Jews keep reading that rag and trusting it as a news source.
The cover of this week's Charlie Hebdo (right) shows Mohammed
shedding a tear and holding up a "Je suis Charlie" sign under the
headline "Tout est pardonné" - all is forgiven. The illustration is
unclear: Is Mohammed forgiving the secular leftie blasphemers? Or are
the secular lefties forgiving Mohammed and his murderous believers? The Commentator devotes an editorial to the subject, and finds it "a strange cover" symbolic of "western confusion". On the other hand, Paul Berman in The Tablet thinks "uncertainty lends majesty".
When skilled persons who have never shied away from clarity produce a
work whose meaning is unclear, then it is reasonable to assume the
unclearness is itself the meaning. The surviving staff at Charlie Hebdo
have undergone a week of surreal hellishness, in which their senior
colleagues have been murdered for publishing images of Mohammed, and the
world is professing its solidarity and egging them on to prove that nothing has changed. In other words, they're expected to produce new images of Mohammed, which may well get them murdered, too.
...
So, for all the viral hashtags and Helen Mirren wearing a pencil
brooch to the Golden Globes and George Clooney declaring "Je suis
Charlie", what's left of the staff at Charlie Hebdo nevertheless
got the message: You're still on your own. We'll send you a supportive
Tweet, but that's it. Murderous-rage-wise, we'd rather you remained the
focus. Hey, but we're all really looking forward to next week's
controversial cover!
I prefer the fellows who just state upfront that Charlie Hebdo
was asking for it to Dame Helen and untold millions all waving pencils,
and none of 'em with any lead in 'em. Imagine being at the editorial
meeting with the empty chairs, and understanding, even as millions
around the world profess to be your new best friend, that you're still
the lonesomest guy in town.
They did a Mohammed cover because they had to. But it certainly has
an uncharacteristic passivity. And it feels like one for the road.
Why is this religion different than all the other religions?
I'm sure you've all noticed that the media treat Muslims differently than anyone else. Daniel Greenfield points out that as soon as there's a Muslim terror attack (is there any other kind?), the media immediately trots out 'fear of an anti-Muslim backlash' stories.
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a
kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in
Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.
With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice
but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash”
stories.
The Voice of America ran its “Muslims fear backlash” piece while the
bodies were still warm. The Los Angeles Times rushed out its “Muslims
fear backlash” story before the Kosher supermarket massacre. It quoted
the Muslim spokesman for the National Observatory Against Islamophobia
asserting that it is Muslims who suffer after such attacks. Muslims
however weren’t the ones who suffered. The four dead Jews at a Kosher
supermarket did the suffering at the hands of a Muslim gunman.
While Muslim murderers were still prowling France for victims, the
media was making the story about the perpetrators, not the victims.
...
Is it really a backlash that Muslims fear or a moral reckoning?
In the rush to make bigots like Walid the victims, instead of the
actual men and women being murdered in the name of his violent ideology,
the hard questions about the connection between the historical Islamic
anti-Semitism bandied about by Dawud Walid and the modern massacres of
Jews go unasked.
...
The root cause of Islamic violence is Islam. Everything else, from poverty to YouTube videos, is subsidiary at best.
The cries of “Islamophobia” and the claims of a backlash silence the
victims of Muslim terror and encourage social blindness to the next
Muslim attack against Jews, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and
countless others.
The Muslim backlash story is a great media tradition that dates back
to at least September 11. While the streets of downtown Manhattan were
still streaked with the ashes of the dead, the media began running
stories about Muslims who were changing their clothes and putting up
American flags out of fear that the maddened patriotic rabble would
shortly begin massacring Muslims.
The mass anti-Muslim riots after September 11 never materialized;
just as they never materialized after the Sydney Siege in Australia or
the latest Muslim massacres in France.
...
It is that sense of self-pitying Muslim victimization that leads easily
to Muslim violence. Violence is often sanctioned by victimhood. That
Muslims believe themselves to be the victims is nothing new. The Nazis
also believed that they were the victims. So did the Muslim killer in a
Kosher supermarket who claimed that ISIS, with its mass rapes and
genocidal campaign, was the victim of French intervention.
Why does the media treat Islam differently? Dennis Prager says it's political correctness.
Why did the Muslim terrorists go to a Jewish grocery? This is not a
riddle. We all know. But some in the media pretended they didn’t. During
the attack, a reporter for Sky News, one of the largest
English-language news services in the world, said on Fox News: “Whether
it was targeted specifically for its religious connotations it is
difficult to know.”
Is there one reader of this column who thought it “difficult to know” whether the Muslim terrorists targeted a Jewish grocery? Why would someone presumably intelligent say something so obviously stupid? In order to protect Islam.
Just
as so many in the media and government did after Major Nidal Hasan’s
murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. They found it difficult to
ascertain if religion was a factor in his murders, despite his yelling
“Allahu akbar” while shooting, despite his listing himself as a “Soldier
of Allah” on his Facebook page, and despite many other affirmations of
Islamism.
A New York Times writer blamed it on Major
Hasan’s “snapping” (in an article titled “When Soldiers Snap”). Chris
Matthews said “it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.”
NPR correspondent Tom Gjelten explained that Hasan, though never in
combat, may have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.”
And the U.S. Department of Defense classified the Fort Hood shootings
as acts of “workplace violence,” not terror, let alone Islamic terror.
Perhaps
the most egregious example of a society’s elites treating Islam
differently from all other religions took place in the U.K. Between 1997
and 2013, at least 1,400 girls, as young as eleven years old, in the
small English city of Rotherham (population 275,000), were repeatedly
gang-raped and treated as sex slaves. The U.K. government acknowledged
that these atrocities were allowed to go on due to the fact the
perpetrators were British Pakistanis and the girls were white. No one
was allowed to say that at the time. The author of a 2002 report
identifying Pakistanis as the perpetrators and organizers of the
Rotherham gang rapes and sex slavery was sent to diversity training.
Finally, why won’t the New York Times print even one Charlie Hebdo
cartoon? Twelve people were slaughtered over those cartoons; are the
caricatures not newsworthy? Of course they are. But they satirize Islam,
and that is not allowed.
Here’s the ultimate irony. These PC professors and news media who treat
Islam so much better than any other religion are literally Islamophobic.
They really fear Islam.
But what is it they fear about Islam? Is it just the violence? No. It's the fact that Islam proves over and over again that learning to empathize with the 'other' doesn't make them change their behavior. That means that the conflict between Islam and non-Islamic society cannot be resolved. The PC media elites (and the Left) cannot admit that there is any problem in society that they cannot resolve.
Canada's PUBLIC broadcaster: 'Out of respect for Muslims, we won't show Mohamed'
@kufr666@PonyFortyTwo It is a central tenet of Islam that Muhammad not be depicted. Out of respect for viewers/readers, we don't show it.
— John Bowman (@johnbowman) January 9, 2015
John Bowman is a broadcaster for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) - the Canadian national (government financed) broadcaster.
Sorry, but other than racism, obscenity and violence (all of which are currently depicted on most public television in the West), I see no place for this type of political correctness. If our public broadcasters are going along with every demand, and they demand that we not depict the truth about them, how will people ever learn the truth? If you're offended, shut the television off.
Four people were killed on Friday when an Islamic terrorist entered a Paris Kosher supermarket on Friday afternoon. 15 other hostages escaped when police stormed the supermarket. The terrorist who perpetrated the attack (and also murdered a Paris police officer on Thursday) was killed, as were the two Charlie Hebdo terrorists who took hostages in a printing plant outside Charles DeGaulle Airport. The three terrorists were in constant contact with each other.
Four of the hostages who were held at the kosher supermarket were
murdered by terrorist Amedy Coulibaly when he entered the store, just a
few hours before French President Francois Hollande denounced what he
called “an appalling anti-Semitic act.” Fifteen other hostages survived
the ordeal.
...
Yesterday, Coulibaly murdered a police officer in Montrouge, south of
Paris. His female companion, Hayat Boumeddiene, is said to still be at
large. During the simultaneous sieges, the couple reportedly spoke
more than 500 times to the Charlie Hebdo killers, Charif and Said
Kouachi, who were cornered by police at a printing shop to the northeast
of Paris.
According to French media reports, Coulibaly and Cherif Kouachi were
two of the most committed followers of convicted terrorist Djamel
Beghal. Telephone conversations reveal that the pair visited Beghal’s
home in Murat in the south of France.
French President Francois Hollande described the events as “a tragedy for the nation”.
In a national address, he thanked the security forces for their
“courage, bravery and efficiency,” but added that France still faced
threats.
“We have to be vigilant. I also ask you to be united – it’s our best weapon,” he said.
“We must be implacable towards racism,” he added, saying that the supermarket attack was an “appalling anti-Semitic act.”
It's too late for France - they let too many Islamic terrorists in and now they cannot get rid of them all. Let the rest of Europe - which is headed in the same direction - learn before it is too late.
But Assange is in a different league than the BDS'ers, and had a lot of credibility until now. Breitbart calls Assange for the tweet.
While Google is unable to find anything resembling an official or
organized “Jewish pro-censorship lobby,” to back its defamation,
WikiLeaks links to a 5 year-old Daily Telegraph report
about a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist facing charges of anti-Semitism in a
French court. Mauraice Sinet, who was 80 at the time, faced these
charges (and was fired by Charlie Hebdo) over a column some interpreted
as “linking prejudice about Jews and social success.”
France’s notorious Hate Speech Laws, however, are not designed to just protect Jews.
France’s principal piece of hate speech
legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes
incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of
one’s origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national,
racial, or religious group. A criminal code provision likewise makes it
an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication.
There are numerous instances of French citizens, including actress Brigitte Bardot and even legitimate presidential contenders, finding themselves hauled before French courts and convicted of speech crimes against Muslims.
Charlie Hebdo terrorists order female cartoonist to convert or die, @NYTimes deletes account, cartoonist denies saying it
Yet another instance of the New York Times not wanting to offend 'Muslim sensibilities'? An account in the newspaper from one of the persons present at the Charlie Hebdo editorial meeting that was attacked includes this threat from the terrorists:
This morning, BenK at Ace of Spades
quoted an NYT story by Liz Alderman titled “Survivors Retrace a Scene
of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.” Take note of these two paragraphs from that
story:
Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in
that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed
when one of the men approached her.
Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m
not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but
you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she
recalled.
Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in
that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting
started, she thought she would be killed.
Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the
floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of
the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at
her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would
not be killed because she was a woman.
“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the
gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she
recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not
right.”
Sigolène
Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take
part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought
she would be killed. Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to
the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one
of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun
at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she
would not be killed because she was a woman.
She
disputed a quotation attributed to her and carried on the website of
the French radio service RFI stating that the gunman had told her she
should convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover herself. Instead, she
told The New York Times in an interview, the gunman told her: “Don’t be
afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you.” He spoke in a steady voice, she
said, with a calm look in his eyes, saying: “ ‘You are a woman. But
think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.’ ” Then she said he
turned to his partner, who was still shooting, and shouted: “We don’t
shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”
Who pressured Ms. Vinson to change her story? Inquiring minds want to know. The only listed correction to the article is this:
Correction: January 8, 2015
An earlier version of the list of contributors to this article
misspelled the surname of one. She is Karine Granier-Deferre, not
Granier-Denfert.
Hmmm. If we're afraid to even identify the enemy, how can we fight it? Waiting for the French reporter to come up with a tape of his/her interview or their original notes.
Flashback: New York Daily News censors Charlie Hebdo cartoon
It's this kind of fecklessness by the mainstream (and much of the rest of the) media that made Charlie Hebdo stand alone and made them a target. This picture is from the New York Daily News in 2012 and may be found here.
Notice that mocking (religious) Jews is just fine with the Daily News. Only Muslims are immune from mockery and criticism.
"The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible," said
Soeren Kern, an analyst at the Gatestone Institute and author of annual
reports on the "Islamization of France."
"Islam is a permanent
part of France now. It is not going away," Mr. Kern said. "I think the
future looks very bleak. The problem is a lot of these
younger-generation Muslims are not integrating into French society.
Although they are French citizens, they don't really have a future in
French society. They feel very alienated from France. This is why
radical Islam is so attractive because it gives them a sense of meaning
in their life."
While not a complete safe-haven for al Qaeda-type
operatives, Paris and other French cities have become more fertile
places for Muslim extremists in the past decade. City leaders have
allowed virtual Islamic mini-states to thrive as Muslims gain power to
govern in their own way.
"There are no-go areas not just in Paris,
but all over France, where they are effectively in control," said
Robert Spencer, who directs JihadWatch.org, a nonprofit that monitors
Muslim extremists.
"They're operating with impunity, apparently
secure in the knowledge that authorities cannot or will not act
decisively to stop them," he said. "And with the universal denial and
obfuscation of the clear motive for the Charlie Hebdo attack, they have
good reason to think that."
The attackers who killed 12 people at
the offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo claimed to be members
of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Witnesses said they spoke
perfect French, a strong indication that they are homegrown terrorists
who received help from AQAP or another group.
And it's not just France. It's all over Europe.
Said Mr. Kern, "Europe is very committed to multiculturalism. So any
speech critical of Islam is immediately branded as being Islamophobic or
racist or something like that. There's not really an honest debate
about what's going on in Europe because the European elite have so much
invested in this multicultural society that they're trying to build."
For those of you sitting in the US who think this doesn't affect you... French citizens don't need a visa to travel to the United States. Neither do most European citizens. Maybe once Obama is gone, that can be reconsidered.
For that matter, French and other European citizens don't need a visa to travel to Israel either, although we've been known to deny entry to people who come here to make trouble, and the French government knows it.in
But as long as the attitude toward Islamic terrorism in France and in other countries in Europe remains like the flashing light above, the West is going to have a problem and will some day - God Forbid - be defeated.
After the murders: One US mainstream media outlet publishes Charlie Hebdo cartoon, others refuse
One US mainstream media outlet - the Washington Post - decided that it was important to show its readers why 12 people were murdered in Paris on Wednesday. The rest of the US mainstream media is either afraid or too politically correct to publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
But many mainstream U.S. media feel otherwise: The Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC News and others
have all shunned the images under one rationale or another. The New
York Times has an expansive explanation: “Under Times standards, we do
not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to
offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times
editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give
readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.” That’s from
an official statement provided to the Erik Wemple Blog. Newer media
outlets like Gawker, the Daily Beast and BuzzFeed have published the
images.
Meanwhile, USA Today has decided to publish an op-ed from British Islamist Anjem Choudary, which claims that the terror attack is France's fault for not shutting down Charlie Hebdo. That will score them brownie points with Islamic State.
By the way, the New York Times' reaction is particularly mealy-mouthed. How many times have they printed things that are offensive to Jews and/or Christians and claimed they were just giving someone a forum?
Still wondering why the West is threatened by Islamist terrorism?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
