Showing posts with label Religious controversies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious controversies. Show all posts

Monday, June 19, 2017

2016's Terrorism Totals - Over 1,000 Arrested In Europe

According to the latest Europol report, there were 1,002 arrests made for terrorist offences in the EU last year.


Infographic: Terrorism in Europe in 2016 | Statista


You will find more statistics at Statista


Of these, Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes that 718 were related to jihadist terrorism - making three consecutive years of increases. Nevertheless, the majority of the 142 attacks completed, foiled or failed were related to ethno-nationalism and separatism (99). Of these attacks, 47 were classed as "completed".


Terrorism claimed the lives of 142 people in the EU in 2016, with an additional 379 people suffering injuries. Nearly all of these fatalities and most of the casualties occurred as a result of jihadist attacks. The exceptions were six victims of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland and the murder of the UK Member of Parliament Jo Cox, a year ago this month.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Snyder: Desperate Liberals Try To Blame The Manchester Terror Attack On Anyone Other Than Islamic Terrorists

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,



The left just can’t seem to understand that Islamic terrorists are going to try to destroy our way of life no matter how nice we are to them. On Monday night, a bombing at Ariana Grande’s Manchester concert made headlines all over the globe. 22 people, including an 8-year-old girl, were killed and 59 were wounded. It is exactly the sort of “soft target” attack that I have been warning about, and ISIS quickly claimed responsibility. Within the last 30 days, there have been 169 Islamic terror attacks in a total of 24 different countries. Last year, the number of global terror attacks was up 25 percent from the year before, and this year we will almost certainly see another all-time record high. But many liberals never even want to use the phrase “Islamic terror” because it doesn’t fit their agenda.


In fact, many liberals immediately jumped on Twitter after the terror attack in Manchester and started warning about the spread of “Islamophobia”.


For example, Quen Took posted the following tweet…





Don’t use incident as an excuse for Islamophobia. Stand with our beautiful Muslim siblings & don’t scapegoat innocent people.



And TheBardAsPundit warned that engaging in “Islamophobia” may provoke more terror attacks…





I have a good idea. Let’s piss off more Muslims with mindless Islamophobia. That should help.



Of course the mainstream media here in the United States attempted to put their own politically-correct spin on things. On ABC, there was far more concern about “anti-Islamic backlash” than there was for the victims of the attack…





Despite the horrific nature and impact, ABC was eager to downplay the motive behind the deadly attack. In fact, ABC was more worried about the perpetrators than the victims, warning that this could provoke an “anti-Islamic backlash” across Europe.



And on the Today show on NBC, counter-terrorism “expert” Richard Clarke seemed to blame President Trump for the rise in terror attacks that we have been seeing…





They have a good police and security service and so do we, but we have no ostracized, we’ve embraced our Muslim Americans. That’s why the talk against Muslims in the last year in the campaign and since has been very counterproductive. The only way to solve this problem is to have everyone think they’re on the same side.



Yes, let’s follow Clarke’s advice and try to convince the Islamic terrorists that we are on their side.


That should work.


Until the entire western world is willing to embrace Islam and swear allegiance to Allah, the radical Islamists will never stop. Their faith tells them that it is their destiny to rule the world, and they will never rest until they have achieved that goal.


Unfortunately, most people believe what they want to believe, and what most politically-correct pundits in the western world want to believe is that radical Islam is not the problem.


On CNN, one “analyst” even suggested that the attack in Manchester may have been a “false flag” conducted by “right-wing” extremists…





CNN “Terror Analyst” Paul Cruickshank said Monday night on Anderson Cooper’s AC360 that the bombing attack in Manchester could be a “right-wing” “false flag.”



“It must also be noted that in recent months in Europe, there’s been a number of false flag plots where right-wing extremists have tried to frame Islamists for terrorism,” Cruickshank said. “We have seen that in Germany in recent weeks.”



Of course that theory didn’t last long once the authorities identified the attacker as a Muslim.


It is absolutely imperative that we understand the mindset of these Islamic radicals. If they could press a button that would annihilate all non-Muslims on the entire planet, many of them would do it.


Some of the more “moderate” jihadists would prefer to give everyone a chance to convert to Islam first before killing them, but the end result would be the same.


There is no possible way to compromise with people that are intent on exterminating you. And as they get their hands on more powerful weapons, the size and scale of these terror attacks is going to increase exponentially.


We must make every effort to defeat terror groups such as ISIS militarily, but even more importantly we must seek to turn hearts and minds away from radical Islam all over the planet. It is a bankrupt worldview, and we need to show those that are following radical Islam that there is a much better way.


Unfortunately, nations all over the western world are turning away from the values and the principles that they were founded upon, and so western leaders have very little to offer at this point.


One recent report found that Islam is on track to surpass Christianity and will become the largest faith on the entire planet by the year 2070. Violence and bloodshed will continue to be used by jihadists to advance their faith, but another way that the goal of global domination is moved forward is by migration. Paul Nehlen, the author of an upcoming book entitled “Wage The Battle”, recently explained how this works





“Hijrah means ‘migration in the name of Allah,’” said Nehlen, who explained that the ultimate goal is to populate non-Muslim nations to the extent needed to impose Shariah law.



“The hijrah is one way of spreading the Shariah, spreading the law of Islam, this political doctrine, to land where Islam isn’t,” Nehlen said. “That’s what this documentary covers. It talks about the bigger picture here of what we saw here. It stems directly from their fundamental texts.”



He said hijrah is another method by which Muslims can earn their salvation.



“Quite unlike a Christian, who believes you can’t earn your way in and only by the grace of God are you granted access to heaven through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, Muslims believe they can earn their way in,” Nehlen said. “They believe they have to earn their way in.”



Radical Islam has declared war on us, but most liberals don’t even think that we are in a war.


And in any war, if one side chooses not to fight the other side wins by default.


The western world desperately needs to wake up, because we are in a life or death battle, and right now this fight is only in the early rounds.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

The West Submits To Blasphemy Laws

Via Judith Bergmann of The Gatestone Institute,


  • "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning..." — Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Samer Majzoub, Canadian Muslim Forum.

  • The motion still does not offer any definition or any statistics to support its claim that "Islamophobia" is a problem in Canada.

  • However, it should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has so swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government measures.

The West is submitting to blasphemy laws. Denmark, for example, has apparently decided that now is the time to invoke a dusty, old blasphemy provision. Denmark still has a provision in the penal code against blasphemy, but until now, it has only been used three times. The last time was nearly half a century ago, in 1971. Denmark"s Attorney General has nevertheless just charged a man for burning a Quran.


In the West, blasphemy as a criminal offence has for centuries generally been considered a relic of the past. In a largely godless society, few people take offense to blasphemous comments or acts. Christians do not descend upon alleged blasphemers with guns and knives, and publishers do not worry about "offending" Christians.


In 1997, Danish public service radio financed an artist burning a Bible and broadcast it on national television. No one was charged, even though there were complaints and the state prosecutor investigated the case.


Yet, a Danish man will be prosecuted. He burned his own Quran in his own garden and then posted the video in a public Facebook group, "Yes to freedom, No to Islam," with the accompanying text, "Consider your neighbor, it stinks when it burns". Attorney General Jan Reckendorff stated:





"It is the prosecution"s view that the circumstances of the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Qur"an implies that in some cases it may be a violation of the blasphemy provision, which deals with public mockery or scorn against a religion. It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case require that it should be prosecuted in order for the courts to have the opportunity to take a position on the matter."



The Attorney General may have been mentioning the Bible only out of politeness. After all, no one has been prosecuted for burning the Bible in Denmark, as not even burning it on national television was considered sufficiently offensive. The Quran is clearly a very different matter.


The decision has caused renewed debate about abolishing the blasphemy provision in Denmark -- an issue that regularly pops up.


In Norway, the provision against blasphemy was abolished in 2005. A poll conducted in January showed that 41% of Norwegian Muslims believe that blasphemy should be punished, and 7% believe that the penalty for blasphemy anywhere should be capital punishment.


In Britain, at least one man has been prosecuted and sentenced for burning the Quran (in 2011) and several arrested in 2010 and 2014 .


The enforcement of blasphemy provisions, so out of place in a largely post-Christian Europe, brings back the Middle Ages, when blasphemy was ferociously prosecuted by the Church. Is that really an era for modern European society to be aspiring to after centuries of fighting for freedom of speech?


In Canada, meanwhile, anti-Islamophobia motions, aiming gradually to prohibit all criticism of Islam -- and part of Muslim blasphemy laws -- are being passed. The Ontario Provincial Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion in February. The motion called on the legislature to "stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance; rebuke the... growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments" and "condemn all forms of Islamophobia." Needless to say, no such motions were introduced to protect Judaism or Christianity.


In October 2016, Canada"s national Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. At the time, no one knew what they were condemning: Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? No one knew, as no one had bothered to define it.



The lack of definition, however, has not stopped Iqra Khalid, a Member of Parliament from the governing Liberal Party, from introducing a new motion on the back of the previous one, Motion M-103, in the Canadian parliament. The motion demands that "Islamophobia" not only be condemned, but that the government develop a comprehensive approach to reducing or eliminating Islamophobia. The motion still does not offer any definition, or any statistics to support its claim that "Islamophobia" is a problem in Canada. However, it should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has so swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government measures. After the first motion was unanimously passed, the man who initiated the original petition, Samer Majzoub, had this to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum:





"Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning... We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada"s supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities... All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies."



Does the West really want to go charging quixotically off to the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages again?