Perhaps, but we need to take steps that greatly reduce their imprint on our soil.
An opinion poll by Maurice de Hond has found that three quarters of the Dutch population think that terror attacks in Europe cannot be prevented whatever is done. After the Paris terror attacks the figure was 56%. Sixty five percent are in favor of border controls as was the case before the Schengen agreement.
Witnesses felt shockwaves of the blast which are believed to have targeted the American Airlines desk
Moment of explosion
— Warfare Worldwide (@WarfareWW) March 22, 2016
— A Moon in White (@Bastille1790) March 22, 2016
Two loud explosions have been heard at a Brussels airport which is being evacuated amid reports of several casualties.
According to reports the blasts centred on an American Airlines desk in a departure hall at around 8am.
Video and images on social media showed smoke rising from an airport building, shattered windows and confused and shocked passengers fleeing to safety. More here.
Passengers flee the terminal
The cause of the two blasts, which occurred at around 8am this morning at an American airline check-in desk, are unknown at this stage.
There are unconformed reports that a bomb had been placed next to a check-in desk.
The blasts occurred four days after the arrest in Brussels of a suspected participant in November militant attacks in Paris that killed 130 people. Belgian police had been on alert for any reprisal action.
Two explosions have been reported at Zaventem airport in Brussels.
Images on social media from the scene showed smoke rising from one of the terminal buildings. The cause of the explosions is unknown.
Reports say the blasts were in the departures area and speak of casualties although this has not been confirmed.
The blasts come four days after the capture in Brussels of Salah Abdeslam, the main suspect in the Paris attacks in November.
Belgian media say the airport is being evacuated. It has been closed to flights. Rail transport to the facility has been halted.
Social media reports from the scene speak of panic as people fled the airport buildings.
Images showed a swathe of shattered glass on one of the buildings.
Other reports say at least one explosion was close to the American Airlines check-in area but again this has not been confirmed.
The Belgian broadcaster RTBF quoted a witness as saying there were people injured or unconscious in the departure area, opposite the Sheraton hotel.
Niels Caignau, a Swissport employee, told Flemish broadcaster VRT: “I was on a break and heard and felt a big explosion – we have from here a view over the departure hall and saw a plume of smoke come out.
“The windows are completely shattered. People went outside in shock. It doesn’t look good.”
Daniel has an excellent response to those calling the dipping of bullets into pig’s blood ….”a legend’.
Actually the legend meme is a ”myth”. We have to fight them any which way we can.
Before political correctness, our soldiers were free to fight back.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
A century before American soldiers fought Muslim terrorism in the Middle East, they fought it in the Philippines. Their attackers were Moro Muslims whose savage fanaticism appeared inexplicable. A formerly friendly Muslim might suddenly attack American soldiers, local Muslim rulers promised friendship while secretly aiding the terrorists and the yellow left-wing press at home seized on every report of an atrocity to denounce American soldiers as murderers whose honor was forever soiled.
Much of what went on in that conflict, including the sacrifices of our soldiers, has been forgotten. The erasure has been so thorough that the media casually claims that the American forces did not use pig corpses and pig’s blood to deter Muslim terrorists. Media fact checks have deemed it a “legend”.
It’s not a legend. It’s history.
The practice began in the Spanish period. A source as mainstream as the New Cambridge History of Islam informs us that, “To discourage Juramentados, the Spaniards buried their corpses with dead pigs.”
Juramentados was the Spanish term for the Muslim Jihadists who carried out suicide attacks against Christians while shouting about Allah. American forces, who had little experience with Muslim terrorists, adopted the term and the Spanish tactics of burying Muslim terrorists alongside dead pigs.
It was a less sensitive age and even the New York Times blithely observed that, “The Moros, though they still admire these frenzied exits from the world, have practically ceased to utilize them, since when a pig and a man occupy a single grave the future of the one and the other are in their opinions about equal.”
The New York Times conceded that the story “shocked a large number of sensitive people,” but concluded that, “while regretting the necessity of adopting a plan so repugnant to humane ideas, we also note that the Moros can stop its application as soon as they choose, and therefore we feel no impulse either to condemn its invention or to advise its abandonment. The scheme involves the waste of a certain amount of pork, but pork in hot climates is an unwholesome diet, anyhow, and the less of it our soldiers and other ‘infidels’ in the Philippines have to eat the better for them.”
It underlines the buffoonish Left’s moronic insistence in using monoculture Islam as the poster child for its multicultural project. It was always doomed for failure. This is the reason why we should reject utopian based ideology for philosophy of the Enlightenment, based upon human experience. That would have stopped any infatuation with Islam dead in its tracks (and Leftism).
By MARK DUELL FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 05:04 GMT, 27 January 2016 | UPDATED: 10:50 GMT, 27 January 2016
Former watchdog chief: Trevor Phillips said in a talk at the Policy Exchange that it was disrespectful to assume Muslim communities would change
Muslim communities are not like others in Britain and the country should accept they will never integrate, the former head of the equalities watchdog has claimed.
Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was disrespectful to assume that Muslim communities would change.
He told a meeting at the Policy Exchange think tank in Westminster on Monday that Muslims ‘see the world differently from the rest of us’.
According to The Times, he said: ‘Continuously pretending that a group is somehow eventually going to become like the rest of us is perhaps the deepest form of disrespect.
‘Because what you are essentially saying is the fact that they behave in a different way, some of which we may not like, is because they haven’t yet seen the light. It may be that they see the world differently to the rest of us.’
Mr Phillips added that people of certain backgrounds in the UK are not going to change their views ‘simply because we are constantly telling them that basically they should be like us’.
The Muslim Council of Britain has insisted that members of the religion are compatible with UK life, and believes that the idea of demanding change from Muslims has promoted discrimination.
Praying: The Muslim Council of Britain has insisted that members of the religion are compatible with UK life, and believes that the idea of demanding change from Muslims has promoted discrimination (file picture)
A spokesman for the organisation told The Times: ‘It assumes that Muslims are not equal, and not civilised enough to be part and parcel of British society, which they most certainly are.’
The Prime Minister has previously made clear that integration failures have allowed extremist ideas to gain traction – resulting in around 700 British Muslims travelling to Syria to join Islamic State.
Just one of the many reasons as to why I loathe Islam.
In many cultures, including those in the West, a woman is placed upon a pedestal, in Islam, she’s a footstool, and something not to be trusted whatsoever.
For a woman who lives in a Muslim society or under Shari’a law, “choice” is an alien word. Inequality, violence, injustice, abuse, and discrimination are daily nightmares.
The painful tale I have to tell — after having lived most of my life in several Muslim countries.
A God Who Hates Women is the title of my latest book, a memoir. I was driven to write it to counter the unfounded claims of many Western pro-Islam or Eastern Islamist scholars.
In detail, I reveal how Western Muslims scholars are not educated or informed enough, but rely on fallacies created to give the illusion of wisdom. Unlike these so-called scholars or Western imams, I lived most of my life in several Muslim countries. I grew up in both dominant Muslim sects, predominantly Shia and Sunni nations (the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria).
Rather than depicting fantasies and baseless theories, I attempt to show readers, through my firsthand experiences, what life in a Muslim country or under the Sharia law is actually like. Although this book focuses mainly on Islam, oppression and women, my next upcoming book, “The Renegade: Memoir of Struggle, Defiance and Enlightenment,” sheds light on the untold truth about Islam, and many things I have remained silent about.
For a woman who lives in a Muslim society or under Shari’a law, “choice” is an alien word. Inequality, violence, injustice, abuse, and discrimination are daily nightmares.
Some women become tools of the dominant Islamist culture: they join the system to please the authorities and to get rewards. Others have found no way to survive other than to be forcefully subjugated, controlled and dehumanized.
Many Western pro-Islam and Eastern Islamist scholars argue that Islam is the “religion of peace” and that Islam respects women. They add that Islam has raised women’s socio-political and socio-economic status in the society.
Why Politicians like president Obama do not want to say Islamic Terrorism? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Terrorist attacks done by Muslims, are done by devout Muslims for the sake of Islam, quoting religious texts, and supported by precedent examples from the life of Muhammad, It’s a duck, an Islamic duck.
You have to remember, that these are the same jackals that pass out sweets after Jews are murdered, and those who cheered outside a Ramallah building (while Arab police stood by watching) as Arabs ripped out the organs of the Jews who happened to stray into their area…..and once they were surrounded, with no way out.
JNS.org – The gruesome revelations about the 1972 Munich Olympics terrorists castrating one of their Israeli victims is not just another horror story. There are important political and strategic implications.
The story of how a gang of Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli Olympic team members, one of them an American citizen, is well-known. The New York Times has now revealed additional details about how the terrorists savagely abused their victims, including castrating one of them.
NOTE: It’s their national/religious character that most Americans refuse to identify with, they have nothing in common with barbarous behaviour. It’s why I label them the Paleostinians.
This shows once again shows how it bodes badly for Europe, in spite of all those who claim otherwise (it’s conspiracy nonsense drummed up by those who identify with the counter-jihad).
Vila said the main reason for the increase in growth of Islam, based on number of followers around the world, is due to birthrates. “Conversion to Islam happens even in the West,” Vila said, but “growth is almost entirely birthrates, not conversions.” Most of the growth of Islam is “within populations that are already Muslim.”
Carter Gray / Graphic by Gustavo Zavala
Posted on December 3, 2015 at 8:00 pm
Many Americans object to allowing more Muslim refugees from Syria and other countries into the U.S. on the grounds that the decision could ultimately lead to a drastic rise in the country’s Muslim population. Research shows that these concerns may be legitimate.
Studies conducted by Pew Research Center show Muslims are the fasting growing religious group in the world and will come close to catching Christianity in number of followers by 2050.
“The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world,” in 35 years, according to Pew Research Center in a study about the future of world religions. “Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.”
Pew Research Center predicts that by 2050 Muslims will make up 29.7 percent of the global
population, whereas Muslims made up 23 percent of the global population in 2010.
Another study by Pew from 2011 shows that in 1990, Muslims made up 19.9 percent of the world population.
Pew Research Center points out if current growth trends continue in 2050, “Muslims are the only major religious group projected to increase faster than the world’s population as a whole.”
David Vila, professor of religion and philosophy at John Brown University, has traveled and excavated across the Middle East and studied Islam extensively.
And the dumbest of the dumb keep on blithering otherwise…….
“…Islam is a delivery system that fires multiple warheads. And it is happening before our very eyes and with the willing complicity of our preceptorial betters, aka the political class, the intellectual clerisy, the corrupt academy and the media camarilla. It should be recognized, too, that these constituencies are given free rein by the widespread ignorance, complacency or timorousness of those they purport to serve.”
Indeed, the culture that has sustained us for centuries is being breached, infested, eroded and is ultimately on the verge of being brought down by a primitive horde of invaders who represent its antithesis. They still have a long way to go to approximate the performance of the 18th century Emperor of Morocco Moulay Ismail who, as Lyall Watson recounts in Dark Nature, killed an estimated 30,000 people with his own hands and enjoyed the services of 500 wives. Such exploits may be normally unattainable, fodder for the Guinness Book of Records, but that is no source of consolation.
Regarding the effort by most liberals and some conservatives to lay the blame for Muslim violence on something called “Islamism” rather than Islam, it just won’t wash. The aforementioned Facebooker recently published an op-ed in the National Post in which, pro forma, he flogged the usual stable of spavined horses: distinguishing “Islamism” from Islam; slamming the former Conservative government for the eminently sane proposal to screen the tsunami of Muslims entering Canada; and dating the eruption of “Islamist” violence and Jew-hatred to the 20th century, thus revealing an ignorance of canonical Islam and Islamic history as vast as the desert from which it emerged.
Not content with resting on his juniper bush, he proceeds to argue on behalf of “the world’s democratic, liberal, reformist and otherwise moderate Muslim majority”—which from what I have seen over the last decade must live on some other planet in the distant reaches of the galaxy, perhaps the same planet the author lives on. But the real kicker is his assertion that the “Islamist” vanguard “sets its mission as doing what Muhammad did,” following the words and example of the universally revered founder of the religion. Perhaps this is just another of his characteristic misformulations, but it destroys his thesis rather dramatically. The conclusion to be drawn here is that pro-Muslim advocacy in whatever form is inherently fatuous and incoherent.
“Islamism” is an invented concept, like “Islamophobia” (a synonym for a fictitious “hate crime”). It is meant to make Islam palatable, in the same way “Islamophobia” is meant to marginalize and discredit those who know it is not. The term “Islamism” resembles in an obverse way the sort of homiletic pieties one notes on “brainy quote” plaques affixed above urinals in public rest stops, something meant to make us feel good about something else. We may be relieving ourselves, with or without difficulty, but we learn that nature is beautiful and friendship is a blessing.
“Islamism” is merely a word minted to obscure the truth of Islam as a theo-political ideology camouflaging its claim to world domination under the cloak of religious observances and domestic cultural practices, that is, the jihad of the spirit as cover for the jihad of eternal warfare. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states—and she should know—“Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can.” Public affairs consultant J. Robert Smith concurs: “The religion of bloody conquest will keep doing what it was built to do by Mohammed centuries before.” Muslim scholars like the respected Tawfik Hamid, who in his recent Inside Jihad labors to rescue Islam from the jihadist “distortion of the Quran,” are beating a dead camel. Hamid’s core assumption in his effort to “refute the violent edicts of Sharia” is conceptually illegitimate, for it rests on the intrinsic salience or presumed sufficiency of mere interpretation, as if the edicts in question were not what they plainly are but are in need of interpretation, or re-interpretation, as if Kill the Infidel consistently repeated in one form or another were not the explicit, non-interpretable command that it is.
You can rest assured that the taqiyya spewing imam Ibn Bayyah was not relating any of this to his ignoramus Finnish “friends” while visiting Helsinki today, in fact, it was quite the opposite
There is only Islam. There is but the “pre” and “post” hijra text of Islam, (which you’ll discover by reading the koran chronologically) with the latter superseding the former according to the doctrine of abrogation.
The two expressions were coined by those who think that the real Islam is the moderate one and that the radicals hijacked it.
Published: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:47 AM
Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at…
Beginning more or less with 9/11, the expression “radical Islam” became the accepted way for the media, politicians and public to define the religious and ideological foundations of Islam-based violence when referring to what the world calls “terror.” This expression was meant to be contrasted with “moderate Islam” which presents Muslims as ordinary people who wish to live in peace with all of mankind – Christians, Jews, Buddhists, unbelievers and the rest of us. The world created the image of two Islams, one radical and impossible to live with, and one moderate and “just like us.”
This differentiation between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is what gave rise to the claim that Islam had been “hijacked” by the radicals, implying that the real and original Islam is the moderate, not the false, radical one.
This is what allows today’s Europe to relate positively to the wave of mostly-Muslim illegal immigrants washing up on its shores – they represent “moderate Islam” and all they want is to live in peace and harmony with their European neighbors.
Permit me to raise some doubts concerning the psychological mindset that claims the existence of two types of Islam. In order to do this, let us clarify an important point: Islam is a text-based framework of ideas and behaviors, covering religion, culture, strictures, politics, law and economics. It is an all-embracing way of life. The most basic text is the Qu’ran, followed by the Hadith (oral law) and the Sura – biography – of Muhammad. The Sharia, Muslim law, is a system of binding laws and injunctions that Muslims are obliged to obey.
There are no two Islams, no moderate one and no radical one, there is just one Qu’ran that includes everything: verses on Jihad and all out war against unbelievers along with verses that speak of recognizing the “other” and living beside him.
There are no two types of hadith, one radical and the other moderate; there is just one body of hadith that includes everything, both violent and moderate ideas.
Muhammad does not have a moderate biography and a radical one; there is only one life story of the prophet of Islam and it has stories that express a radical, violent approach and others presenting a moderate one.
There is also just one Sharia that includes everything, from the radical cutting off of a thief’s hands to the unquestionably moderate admonition to care for the poor and indigent.
That being the case, there is no “moderate Islam” and no “radical Islam”, just one Islam that incorporates both terms, ranging from extreme radicalism to extreme moderation. In practice, we see people with different cultures, some of them extremists and some moderates, all finding verses, ideas, precedents and laws that support their views on life and society in the same Qu’ran, Hadith, Sura and Sharia. The radical Muslim chooses to quote sources that support his extremist approach, while the moderate Muslim finds sources to buttress his moderate approach.
This is what I’ve been saying for years, it’s the inconvenient truth that stops all conversations on “reforming Islam”, or “Islam needs an enlightenment of its own”:
“With the benefit of hindsight, Muslims know where any enlightenment will lead, and will therefore …..reject it.”
He’s a black turbaned ayatollah, meaning he says he’s descended from mohamed.
Like i’ve said for a long while, if mohamed was around today, he’d be palling with the 7th century throwbacks of the islamic state.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
During a recent televised interview with Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq made clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist.
First he spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory, for instance, Israel (see here for a list of European countries also deemed “occupied” in the eyes of Islam).
He then explained “offensive jihad,” Islam’s primary bloodline, which forged what we now call the “Muslim world” over the centuries.
According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West).
The Muslim cleric repeatedly yelled at the secularized host who kept interrupting him and protesting that Islam cannot teach such intolerance. At one point, he burst out: “I am the scholar of Islam [al-faqih]. You are just a journalist. Listen to me!”
If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them. That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].
But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!… Come on, learn what Islam is, are you even a Muslim?!
As for the polytheists [Hindus, Buddhists, etc.] we allow them to choose between Islam and war! This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].
This Arab journalist has been bandied about in the social media over the last 24 or so hrs, for her anger on what her fellow co-religionists have been doing, murder and mayhem in J’lem and around the country. While I do commend her for her un-islamic views on the need to stop the bloodshed, she’s however completely ignorant of her co-religionists reliance on classic islamic texts that motivate and validate their murder lust of Jews.
She (Lucy Aharish) rejects Islam 101 and that is to be applauded, but her ignoramus statements of:
“What god are we talking about? That allows for children to go out and murder innocent people?”
….are typical of people who do not follow the basic tenants of Islam (which is to be applauded, the not following aspect of it, that is), who are genuinely appalled by what people are doing, and have for some reason refused/or ignorant of in connecting the dots to islam 101 (basic mohammedan islam)
And Cameron’s failure is to call it “Islamism”, when it’s just Islam.
The only reason these feckless politicians are having a problem in naming the actual threat, is that it’s followed by 1.6 billion muslims. If it was a new found cult of a few thousand or even a hundred thousand, carrying out the exact same type of brutal murder & mayhem, subjugation of non-believers, enslavement and brutal punishments for perceived violations of its code, then the response by the West (and the rest of the world9 would be drastically different.
NOTE: We need to shift focus away from the actual number of Muslims, to the threat this ideology poses to mankind. We can’t afford to knee-jerk this issue anymore.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron (Photo: Screenshot from video)
U.S. President Barack Obama has drawn fire in the UN from UK Prime Minister David Cameron this week over Obama’s refusal to name the Islamist ideology specifically as the root cause of violent extremism.
Obama cautioned a gathering of international leaders not to profile Muslims specifically on the grounds that “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”
“Barack, you said it and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Cameron countered. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL, to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda and so many other groups.”
“The boy who straps a bomb to his chest and blows up an Iraqi town, the guy that stands in the desert with a knife, having just beheaded a British hostage or whoever, they don’t get there from a standing start” Cameron went on to say.
More here. H/T: Buck