The Fall of France, The Fall of Everyone (video)

The France that fell to the Nazis in 1940 awaits another fall, if this Palestinian preacher is right.  And, via a three-pronged initiative, the fall of France will be marched by that of the entire world.

To quote the uploader, Memri.org:

'Palestinian cleric Abu Taqi Al-Din Al-Dari said in an Al-Aqsa Mosque address that was uploaded to the Internet on March 12, 2019 that young people in Germany and France do not value marriage as much as Muslims do, but that this is not the reason that France will become an Islamic country.

 Rather, he explained, France will become an Islamic country through Jihad, since Muslims must have a country that will bring Islam’s guidance and message to the West.

He gave examples of times in history when countries in the West and Asia were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which he described as an Islamic state, and he said that the Islamic nation is capable of “returning to its former self” and spreading Islam.

Sheik Taqi Al-Din added that the entire world will be subject to the rule of Islam in one of three ways: People will either convert to Islam, be forced to pay the jizya poll tax, or be fought against for the sake of Allah.' [Emphasis added]

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=2ZD7nEPDMDU)

Meanwhile, in Trafalgar Square, beneath the statue of Admiral Lord Nelson:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=03DaTwNsELk)

Islam Exported: an Israeli journalist on the Muslim Brotherhood (video)

An interview by Yaron London with Zvi Yehezkeli on Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman and the Muslim Brotherhood.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSc1xOafwgU

Read more here

It will be noted that the eminent British scholar of Islam Professor Denis MacEoin has commented as follows beneath the video on Youtube: 

"I advise caution here. Many of the statements made by Muhammad ibn Salman in his Atlantic interview struck me as attempts to pull the wool over many people's eyes. For example, in the early section, he declared that 'Islam means peace' and that this was, in fact, a correct translation. As a fluent Arab speaker and reader, he knows perfectly well that 'Islam', which is the fourth form of the verb (aslama) means 'submission'. `'Peace' (from the same root) is 'salam'.

 He said a lot of other things (which I can't recall now) designed to present a positive image of Islam. But the interviewee is right to point out that 'din wa dawla' go together. Islam has always been a perfect combination of religion and state. You can't, for example, remove jihad from shari'a law without removing it from the Qur'an, the ahadith, and the lives of the prophet and his successors. Ditto for the Islamic views of all nonbelievers or specifically Jews and Christians. There are many eminent would-be reformers in Islam, yet none of them has succeeded in creating a true overhaul of the faith. The only true answer to Islamic radicalism would be for total secularism. But would-be secularisers such as Ataturk or Reza Shah failed in the end – look at Turkey under Erdogan or Iran under the post-1979 regime.  

In the mid-fifties, when the Baha'i leader Shoghi Effendi Rabbani was writing about the fate of Islam, he considered it a dead letter and wrote about its institutions, clergy, etc as being in total collapse. Today, it is stronger in many ways than it was in the 19th century. If ibn Salman tries to overhaul the Wahhabi state, he will be assassinated. I would like to think he will achieve great things, but I would exercise caution about him and other would-be reformers."  [Emphasis added]

Ben Shapiro & Qanta Ahmed on US Activist Linda Sarsour (video)

First, Ben Shapiro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdnwx1zR_hM):

 Second, Dr Qanta Ahmed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyfpW1Qovhs):

See also Nonie Darwish here

Blonde on Blond: A Blonde's Bombshell

"Why have jihadist terrorists made France Europe’s bloodiest battlefield? Simple answer: Because France let in the most Muslims."

So writes Australia's most-read (and most controversial) columnist, conservative Andrew Bolt (pictured), in the wake of the Nice atrocity.  He goes on, inter alia, in the Herald-Sun:

 "This link between immigration policies and terrorism largely explains why the French are the greatest victims of Europe’s jihadists.

 It also explains why we are fools not to change our own immigration policies to protect ourselves.

No European Union country has a higher proportion of Muslims than France — up to 10 per cent of its population, or six million people, though statistics are vague, and vary.

Yes, numbers don’t tell the whole story, but they do count....

France has the most Muslims, and that is why four people were killed, three of them children, in an Islamist attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse four years ago.

To order click here

That is why 20 people were murdered in Paris in last year’s Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket....

That is why 130 more people were murdered in Paris last November in an Islamic State assault on restaurants, a concert hall and a football stadium.

That is why a policeman and his wife were last month murdered by a jihadist outside their home.

That is why 84 people died in last week’s terrorist attack in Nice, when a Tunisian-born man rammed his truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day....

Japan has strict controls on immigration and its 127 million people include just 100,000 Muslims. Result: zero Islamist attacks.

Contrast that with Australia, which has a population of just 24 million, but 500,000 Muslims. How we’ve paid for leaving our door open....

The mathematics is clear: The more Muslims we import, the more danger we are in...."

One of the readers agreeing with Mr Bolt is television presenter Sonia Kruger, who has become  the whipping girl of the usual suspects of the Left for her remarks during a television news channel today in which Mr Bolt's column was discussed:

The betting seems to be on how much longer Ms Kruger will keep her job.

Meanwhile, on the warpath over free speech regarding Islam is the woman British Home Secretary (now Prime Minister) Theresa May (pictured, in hijab) banned from Britain along with Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer:

Thanks For The MEMRI: A call to action

As reported here, the highly illuminating and highly valued videos by MEMRI.org, which show, with translations from the Arabic, what is being said by Islamic extremists on Middle Eastern media regarding Israel, Jews, Jihad and infidels, have been taken down by YouTube.

 ("This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Community Guidelines and/or claims of copyright infringement.")

This outrageous decision means that although the censored videos are still available on MEMRI's own website, they are not as widely distributed as they could and should be.  The videos from the MEMRI TV Channel that I and other bloggers have embedded on our sites or linked to do not show up now.

Aussie pro-Israel activist Shirlee Finn (aka "Shirl in Oz" as a commenter) is on the case, with this plea:

For some unknown reason YouTube, which allows the most vile antisemitic, anti-Christian, racist, sexually explicit, jihadist and homophobic videos to stand on its web site, has chosen to remove the MEMRI Channel which is nothing but the truth. It offers direct translations the vile trash taken from the Middle East media, as the name suggests.

 This Channel is bringing the truth to the world, yet Youtube deletes it. What an utter disgrace.

 Please contact them asking for it to be reinstated.

 Copy and paste the URL into the address bar

https://www.youtube.com/user/MEMRITVVideos

 Scroll down to HELP and then click send Feedback. You need to be on the page in order to send a screen shot

Please post this on you [Facebook] walls and share it where you can, this is an important web site which needs to be reinstated.

Please share widely!

Update: MEMRI has had its video channel restored! Catch it while you can.

In Portsmouth, With Flag & Kippa From The EDL Props Department (video)

In Portsmouth, the UK's premier naval port, from which many a maritime hero left to fight his country's enemies (and from which, in stark contrast, this group of villains left for their adventures abroad), a counter-demo last month outside the war memorial (the one next to the Guildhall) by the EDL against a march against Operation Defensive Edge staged by Portsmouth and South Downs branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Below is a section of the anti-Israel crowd. Inevitably, the Greens and the Far Left are in evidence. The big red banner is that of the local trades union council (the rather Islamic-looking badge is in fact the city crest, adopted in the nineteenth century along with the motto "Heaven's Light Our Guide"):

The EDL's props include an Israeli flag brandished (that seems to be the correct word) by a man kitted out in an over-sized kippa.

I've no idea whether there is now a consensus among Anglo-Jewry that the EDL's avowed support for Israel is but a stick with which to goad the opposition.

The sight of a man fitted out with such props is disconcerting.

Yet obviously not as disconcerting as the knowledge that a pleasant medium-sized city in the South of England, a city not known (at least not when I was there last) for a huge Muslim population, nevertheless had a bunch of jihadist vipers in its bosom...

Robin Williams: Jihad (video)

The late American comedian and actor was not really my cup of tea; however, here is a skit on Jihad he made in 2009 that might be of interest to any fans out there on here (h/t Vlad Tepes blog):

Syria: An Aussie Shahid, The Endangered Christian Minority, & David Singer On Putin

I understand from an expert in these matters that some 80 per cent of Syrian rebels are Jihadists, about 60 per cent of them affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.  (See, incidentally, Edgar Davidson's salutary post here.) It's reported that about 100 Australians are in Syria fighting with the rebels, and there are unconfirmed reports that one of them, Queensland man Abu Asma al-Australi, had the distinction a few days ago of becoming Australia's first ever suicide bomber, when he blew himself up in a car bombing attack on a school housing government troops carried out on behalf of the proscribed Al Quaeda-linked al-Nusrah Front.  The ABC reported last week that ASIO believes that 100 Australians are in Syria espousing the rebel cause ...

The alleged Aussie suicide bomber; Photo: The Age & The Sydney Morning Herald

Over at the Almond Rod blog, a Christian blog that supports Israel, Anglican Ian G in recent posts has drawn attention to the pitiful plight of Syrian Christians, and in his current post here he brings his readers' attention to a petition the Barnabas Fund has initiated urging Western governments to take action on their behalf.

Meanwhile, in an article entitled "Putin Puts International Law Before War," Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer writes:

'Russia’s President – Vladimir Putin – has trumped America’s President – Barack Obama – in urging the American nation to put international law before war to prevent any armed attack on Syria threatened by President Obama as a result of the chemical weapons atrocity perpetrated on 21 August that killed 1429 people.

Putin’s message had already been clearly heard by President Obama when he  called on the Congress to postpone a vote approving any such military offensive – choosing instead to now pursue the collection and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria with the backing of a Security Council resolution – which will  undoubtedly be finalised on such terms as are acceptable to Russia.

Putin sought to reinforce this end game in spectacular fashion by publishing an op-ed – (or should it have been called a ” victory speech”?) – in the New York Times under the heading – “A Plea for Caution From Russia – What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria”

Putin’s concentration on stressing the importance of the UN Security Council as the sole legal authority to declare war – and conversely to help end war – was particularly revealing.

On the role of the Security Council – Putin declared:

“The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.”

The inability of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council to agree on the terms of a resolution to collect and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria – certainly could signal a lack of “real leverage” – threatening the future of the Security Council.

America’s objective in preventing the future use of chemical weapons in Syria or elsewhere will now be met – perhaps not entirely to America’s complete satisfaction – by accepting the terms of any Security Council resolution proposed by Russia.

However Putin now certainly needs to explain the lack of “real leverage” demonstrated by the failure of those same five Permanent Members to agree on the terms of a resolution to end the 30 month civil war in Syria that has already claimed over 100,000 lives, created two million refugees and displaced 5 million Syrians in their own country.

Russia needs to do its own soul searching as it continues to exercise its veto vote to paralyse all efforts by the majority of the other Permanent Members to obtain a Security Council Resolution to try and end this humanitarian outrage.

Russia cannot continue to be the impediment frustrating a resolution to try and end this conflict – if Putin wants to be taken seriously.

Putin has pointedly omitted mentioning the United Nations General Assembly – and for very good reason. The voting bloc comprised by the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and third world nations ensures that the most fanciful resolutions can be passed with impunity to demonise and denigrate other member States.

The fact that resolutions of the General Assembly have no legal effect is not understood by most people – who continually quote those General Assembly resolutions to justify their own viewpoints.

The classic example is the large number of General Assembly resolutions declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank as being illegal in international law – when there are contradictory legal opinions asserting they are legal.

Repeated mantra like – these non-binding resolutions take on a life and misleading legal status of their own – when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.

On the need to be bound by the rule of law – Putin stated:

“From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Putin’s words – whilst very noble in their import – suffer from the old adage “two lawyers – three opinions”

Regrettably the International Court of Justice remains the only tribunal within the UN framework with jurisdiction to deal with disputes between States – but only if those States agree to accept its jurisdiction.

The Court has the power to issue advisory opinions – but they are also non-binding.

Calling in the lawyers to clarify the law is a worthwhile objective Putin and Obama should certainly pursue.

The Security Council can play an important role in the formation of a new Court system with teeth – possessing the ability to have its judgements respected and enforced.

Yes – the law is the law, is imperfect and is often reversed on appeal.

Yet it still remains the most effective way of settling disputes between States if those States themselves are incapable of doing so.'