Thursday, January 4, 2018

JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Trump: Palestinians unwilling to talk peace, so “why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?”

  BY 52 COMMENTS
For years the U.S. has been showering billions upon various entities, hoping to buy their loyalty or at least compliance. We’ve been played for easy marks by the sharpies of the world. President Trump is calling a halt. He is the first President even to threaten to call a halt. This is the first administration to show that intimidation and bullying are no longer currency in the White House.
“Trump threatens stop to Palestinian aid over Jerusalem row,” BBC, January 3, 2018:
The US may stop aid payments to Palestinians who are “no longer willing to talk peace”, President Trump said.
On Twitter, Mr Trump said the United States received “no appreciation or respect” in return for its aid.
He also said his controversial recognition of the contested city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital took the hugely divisive issue “off the table” for new peace talks.
Palestinians had said the move showed the US could not be a neutral broker.
The decision on Jerusalem was also overwhelmingly condemned at the United Nations, where 128 countries voted against Mr Trump’s fulfilment of a campaign promise.
The US president was following up earlier comments about aid payments to Pakistan, in which he said the US had received only “lies and deceit” in exchange for billions of dollars in aid.
Jerusalem is one of the world’s most contested sites.
Israel claims the whole of the city as its capital. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Mr Trump, however, decided to formally recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite being warned it could cause unrest in the region.
He also said he would move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, where all other nations have their consulates.
For the Palestinians, Mr Abbas said: “The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process.”
He also called Jerusalem the “eternal capital of the state of Palestine”.

How did the Palestinians respond to Mr Trump’s threat to cut aid?

Angrily. A Twitter feed of the governing Palestine Liberation Organisation accused Mr Trump of sabotaging their “search for peace”.

What kind of aid does the US send to Palestinians?

Mr Trump’s tweets followed remarks from Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the United Nations, in which she said the US would stop contributing to the UN’s relief agency for Palestinian refugees.
The agency runs education, health, and social programmes. The United States is its largest governmental donor, handing over almost $370m (£270m) in 2016.
Speaking at a news conference, Ms Haley said: “The president has basically said that he doesn’t want to give any additional funding, or stop funding, until the Palestinians are agreeing to come back to the negotiation table.”…
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

California charges man for sending Islamocritical posts to Islamic Center of Southern California

  BY 77 COMMENTS
All right, so apparently “intent to annoy or harass” is a misdemeanor in Southern California. Had I known that, I could have brought up on charges about a thousand people who have emailed me over the years. But there’s the rub, actually: is “intent to annoy or harass” a crime when directed at non-Muslims, or only at Muslims? Would Feigin have been prosecuted if he had written five comments critical of Christianity on some church’s Facebook page?
“California Prosecutes Man For Posting Anti-Muslim Messages On Facebook,” by Anders Hagstrom, Daily Caller, December 30, 2017:
California has leveled misdemeanor charges against 41-year-old Mark Feigin after he sent five anti-Muslim posts to the Islamic Center of Southern California’s (ICSC) Facebook page in 2016.
The California Attorney General’s office argues that his comments constituted “repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device” with “intent to annoy or harass,” a misdemeanor under California law, Reason.com reported Friday. California courts are scheduled to begin the trial Jan. 2, according to court records. Feigin admitted in October 2016 that he wrote the following comments between Sept. 17 and 25 of the same year.
  • “THE TERROR HIKE … SOUNDS LIKE FUN” (In reference to the Center’s advertised “Sunset Hike”)
  • “THE MORE MUSLIMS WE ALLOW INTO AMERICA THE MORE TERROR WE WILL SEE.”
  • “PRACTICING ISLAM CAN SLOW OR EVEN REVERSE THE PROCESS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.”
  • “Islam is dangerous – fact: the more muslim savages we allow into america – the more terror we will see -this is a fact which is undeniable.”
  • “Filthy muslim shit has no place in western civilization.”
ICSC Communications Coordinator Kristin Stangas blocked Feigin soon after he made the final post, but also kept copies of the comments to pursue legal action. The Los Angeles Police Department arrested Feigin Oct. 19 and interviewed him. Feigin is now arguing that his charges should be dismissed because they are based on an unconstitutional application of the law.
Specifically, Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b) states that “every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device … to another person is … guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.”
The AG’s office argues that Facebook comments are not legally different from telephone calls in this circumstance, and that Feigin’s intent was clearly to “annoy or harass,” making his actions illegal.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Robert Spencer – The PipeLineNews.org Interview

  BY 14 COMMENTS
A wide-ranging interview.
“Anti-Jihadist Author Robert Spencer – The PipeLineNews.org Interview,” by Cheryl Gatesworth, Pipeline News, January 1, 2018:
January 1, 2017 – San Francisco, CA – What follows is an interview of the noted authority on Islam, Robert Spencer who maintains a counter terror news website entitled JihadWatch.org as well as being the author of nearly 20 books.
Q. Given the current state of affairs vis-à-vis the Muslim population of Western Europe, what do you predict if current trend continue, will be the future of Sweden in five years?
A. You’re going to see just more of the same, a great deal more conflict, a great deal more assertiveness and aggressiveness on the part of Muslim immigrants, and ultimately civil war. If there is a sufficient number of Swedes who don’t like the way things are going, and want to stop the country’s descent towards Shari’a and chaos, if that is indeed the case, there will be conflict. But I don’t know that conflict is avoidable at this point.
Q. What do you see as the future of Sweden in ten years?
A. More of the same, unless these trends are stopped, and there’s a huge turnaround in terms of the country’s immigration policy. Then there’s going to be conflict between those who believe Islamic law ought to be the law of the land, and those who would rather live in a free society.
Q. What do you see as the future of Germany in five years?
A. It’s the same answer for every country-there’s got to be a massive change in policy and that has got to come quickly, or there’s going to be conflict and civil war. There’s going to be an increased number of people who want shari’a law, and an increase in the shari’a enclaves that are already in place in several countries in Europe. And as those enclaves grow and begin to swallow up more and more of the countries in which they’re located, they’re inevitably going to come in conflict with those who want those societies to remain free. So I don’t know if civil war can be avoided at that point.
Q. What do you see for the U.K. in five years?
A. The U.K. like Angela Merkel in Germany and the Swedish government, following the policy of massive Muslim immigration without requiring any kind of assimilation, and without making any attempt to vet the immigrants for jihadi sentiment, combining that with the appeasement of Islamic groups, you end up with the situation we have, with the increasingly aggressive Islamic organizations, and more calls for the implementation of Islamic law. That’s inevitably going to result in conflict.
Q. What countries do you see as beyond the tipping point? Or is there a chance for any of them?
A. I don’t think any of them are beyond the tipping point. As the great philosopher Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” None of them are Islamic states now, and that means that none of them need to become Islamic states. It’s possible things could be turned around in every last country in Europe.
Q. What do you think is driving European countries to import Muslims?
A. I think European leaders started out thinking they were going to be importing a workforce that would replace the shrinking and aging workforce of European natives, and that those people would not be required to assimilate, because that was per the agreement that the European Union made with the Arab League. They did not really consider the implications of what they were agreeing to, and ended up bringing in these large numbers of people who have a ready-made model of society and governance they consider superior to (that of their new country’s). Not only did they not realize the implication of not requiring assimilation, also they are globalist socialist internationalists who don’t believe in borders. They think nationalism is the source of evil in the world. That was one of the main reasons why they underestimated the implications of not requiring the immigrant community to assimilate, because they didn’t care about preserving the native culture, they didn’t care about preserving any national or cultural identity, they thought those things were evil. They had no problem with all these people bringing in an alien culture. They thought that national boundaries, ethnic distinctions, all that was evil, and that bringing in an alien culture was just what would solve Europe’s problems.
Q. The current Pope shows an amiability towards Islam that goes beyond Christian charity, and seems to be based on a willful misunderstanding of basic Islamic doctrine.
A. I think the Pope is also the same kind of person in terms of his worldview as Theresa May in Britain, Angela Merkel in Germany, the leaders of Sweden. The Pope is a Marxist internationalist. He thinks that the idea of trying to preserve a cultural identity in Europe is wrong and has to be stopped. His remarks about Islam being a religion of peace, however, and not having anything to do with terrorism, manifest a willful ignorance that is nothing short of psychotic. It is absolutely divorced from reality, and what motivates that is a mystery to me. The real problem with his doing that is really not with him, but with the followers of the Pope. They misunderstand or exaggerate the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, and they de facto treat the Pope as if he were some kind of divine oracle. They think because he’s saying Islam is a religion of peace that therefore they have to believe it and say it as well.
Q. In the past, the Church has been accused of being too cozy with the Nazis and communists. Do you think there’s a feeling on the part of the Pope that in selecting Islam, he is putting the Church on the winning side?
A. That’s an excellent point. The Catholic Church is built to survive, that’s its primary goal, to just keep going. So whatever regime comes in to whatever country, it makes an accommodation with that regime such that it can survive. The days of martyrs standing up to an unjust government, as in the Christians of the Roman Empire, those days are over. I think it’s very likely that the Pope is realizing that Europe is going to become Islamized, and consequently he better get with the program. One of the rules for dhimmis, the subjugated Christians under the rule of Islamic law, is that they must not speak ill of Islam, so it’s possible that he’s preparing the ground for that, realizing he’s going to be a dhimmi pope in an Islamic Europe, and so he’d better start acting as if he is one.
Q. What role do you think “moderate Muslims” will play in Islam, for better or for worse?
Moderate Muslims have been a null set in Islam. There are certainly moderate Muslims, and by that I mean Muslims who will never wage jihad, Muslims who will never kill anyone or even write something in defense of Islam, or try to fool infidels into thinking Islam is a religion of peace: all those are kinds of jihad, jihad of the pen, jihad of the tongue. They just want to live their lives, have a job, take care of their families like anyone else. At the same time, we have not seen in all these years since 9/11 any moderate Muslims have any significant influence over the Islamic world. There are moderate Muslims who are very famous in the United States, who get featured on television frequently, and I think they probably do more harm than good, because they give uninformed people the impression that most Muslims are moderate, decent folks like this guy they see on TV, and that is a shame. But they do not have any significant following among their fellow Muslims, and that’s very telling, and that’s because the jihadis do have the teachings of Islam on their side. Most Muslims know this, so they’re not going to stand up against them. I’ve tracked at my website [JihadWatch.org] rallies such as Muslims Against Isis. These are usually attended by 25 people, fifty people, a hundred people. They’re very minor events. Whereas when Muslims were demonstrating in Chechnya against cartoons of Muhammad they had 800,000 Muslims there. When they were demonstrating against cartoons of Muhammad in other counties, it was the same situation, tens of thousands of Muslims there. But we’ve never seen this from moderate Muslims protesting Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam. That is the clearest indication that moderate Muslims are no help. They exist, and I’m glad that they exist. But they are not going to do anything about their violent co-religion.
Were you surprised when Nigel Farage would not join with you and Pamela Geller, vis a vis the refusal of Theresa May to permit you into the U.K?
A. Yeah, you know, I didn’t actually want to approach him, but some people who are friends persuaded me to go up to him when we were both speaking at a conference. I asked him if he would put in a word in regard to the banning of Pamela Geller and me from Britain, and he got all nervous, and essentially the answer was no. Since then, he has, quite recently, when President Trump retweeted some entirely accurate videos of Muslims behaving violently, he condemned Trump for doing so. So I think it’s clear that Nigel Farage, although he did good work in the past with Brexit, has now decided to become an Establishment British politician, as if we needed another, and has betrayed the principles that made him prominent in the first place….
Read the rest here.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Germany enforcing hate speech laws on social media sites

  BY 45 COMMENTS
“Germany has announced that social media websites that don’t remove ‘obviously illegal’ posts could now face up to €50 million in fines.”
Obvious in the eyes of whom? Let’s hope that virulently and vocal anti-Zionist Muslims who routinely call for the death of Jews and Zionists will also face these fines. A new law requires that social media firms “have a fully working and detailed complaints system so that users can report offensive content.”
We all know that any criticism of Islam is deemed “offensive” and “Islamophobic.” No other group has complained so profusely as Islamic supremacists and their supporters about “Islamophobia,” despite statistics showing that hate crimes against blacks and Jews are much more common than hate crimes against Muslims. As pointed out by Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, former imam and member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought: “This sense of victimization has now reached a point – especially given the consistent rhetoric of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations – that many rank-and-file Muslims now genuinely believe that they are a persecuted and oppressed group.”
The sharia police are now on the hunt. Germany is being subjugated into the House of Islam with ease as blasphemy laws come into effect.
“Germany Will Begin Enforcing Hate Speech Laws on Social Media Sites”, by Lucas Nolan, Breitbart, January 2, 2018:
Germany has announced that social media websites that don’t remove “obviously illegal” posts could now face up to €50 million in fines.
BBC News reports that Germany plans to begin enforcing a law that could see social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter fined up to €50 million for hate speech on their platforms. The law gives the companies 24 hours to remove offending content from their platform once they have been notified of its existence. The law applies to any social media sites with more than 2 million members, this means that not only Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube will be at risk of fines, but also sites such as Reddit, Tumblr and Russian social media website VK.
The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) law was passed into law at the end of June 2017 and enforcement began at the start of October. Social media networks were informed of the law and told they had until the end of 2017 to prepare for the law’s implementation. Germany’s justice ministry announced plans to make forms available on their website that could be used by citizens to report content that violates the NetzDG. One of the requirements that NetzDG places on social media firms is not just that they remove content, but that they must have a fully working and detailed complaints system so that users can report offensive content.
Some leniency in the 24 hour content removal time frame will be given in “complex cases,” which will be given a full week for review and action. Many have criticised the law stating that it verges on restricting free speech within the country — the NetzDG is by far the strictest measure enacted by a government on social media websites in recent times. Due to fears of the spread of “fake news” during the 2016 elections, calls for social media regulation became prevalent across Europe. The European Commission also published guidelines for social media websites which encouraged them to act faster on extremist content on their platforms.
Facebook has reportedly already begun recruiting hundreds of content moderators in Germany to watch out for extremist content on their platform…
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *