At the very time when global borders should be tightly monitored because of the ISIS invasion, Europe is faced with a tsunami of migrants. I choose to call them migrants because they are far from all being “refugees.” The guidelines of acceptance vary from one European country to the next. It goes from Germany having pledged to receive in excess of 800,000 refugees to Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Hungary building fences and walls to prevent anyone from entering illegally. The one thing that all these European countries have in common is a lack of preparedness for such a tidal wave of people.
Now there has always been a somewhat steady flow of immigrants into Europe. They have always been attracted by better lives and safer environments and even in some cases, financial independence.
France opened its doors to Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian migrants in the 1950s. They came as guest workers and received the jobs that native Frenchmen wouldn’t dare touch such as garbage collectors, street sweepers and construction workers. Today, their kids and grand-kids are French citizens constituting a hard to ignore voting power as seen during the last French presidential elections.
Too many, too fast:
It would almost appear that the refugee crisis happened overnight. It seems like the on-going Syrian civil war is forcing people out. Nobody can argue with one’s decision to leave their native land to escape persecution, oppression and even death. So the question isn’t about the validity of the Syrian refugee flight. One of the concerns is the sheer number of migrants. For 20 years now, the “New Europe” has allowed people to move freely between its borders, acting as if it had virtually erased them all. But the recent flow of migrants has many European countries reconsidering to re-close their borders. Germany still believes that they can welcome at least another 800,000 migrants. Chancellor Merkel is under the assumption that her refugee intake will help balance out the dangerously low native birthrate. I am not convinced that we are comparing apples to apples here. There isn’t one country in Europe that has the infrastructure to assimilate such a flow of people properly. We have already seen issues in the area of space needed, health, and safety. Curiously enough, most Gulf States like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait that speak a similar language, have similarity in culture and religion have taken none. NONE. They do have the space and are some of the richest countries in the world and they have taken none, WHY?
Not all Syrians are Syrians:
And that is all before we even entertain the concept of some of the migrants being impostors. When I speak of impostors, I actually mean two different kinds. First, we have those who claim to be Syrians but are not. We could call them the “desperate impostors”. Technically, only legal immigrants can remain in a host country. Others, without the proper application of identification papers will be sent back. Of course, this doesn’t apply to war or political refugees. Syrians qualify as refugees of war and as such have a much greater rate of acceptance (98 percent). Since the publication of the 1951 Refugee Convention by the UNHCR, a refugee is a person who from “fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” Going by that definition, Syrians qualify as refugees, along with other countries being plagued by civil unrest. In reality, many people are flooding the European borders with little or no proof of Syrian citizenship.
A Potentially Dangerous mix:
Then we have those who choose to pose as Syrians to be granted asylum and benefits but know all along that they enter a country with a different agenda. These are dangerous individuals that we could call the “radical impostors.” They belong to Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Their immigration isn’t a result from persecution and/or oppression but rather based on their desire to infiltrate, recruit, train and deploy more terrorists. The last 18 months have shown us the damage inflicted by ISIS infiltration and recruitment. The current wave of migration will only exacerbate the whole problem. It is virtually impossible to detect a Syrian from a non-Syrian refugee, so how do various European governments expect to detect ISIS impostors? Good luck with that.
An Unlikely Assimilation:
Being migrants in search of a better life or refugees seeking asylum, the vast majority of these people have Islam in common. In and of itself, this shouldn’t be a concern since the very definition of who qualifies as a refugee includes freedom of religion. Yet it should now be very obvious to the West that Muslims do not integrate and assimilate very well if at all. This isn’t to say that all the incoming Muslims are a menace to Europe, but there is a danger to the cultural and religious divide that is being created by their insertion into the respective countries. And frankly, ISIS’ recruits have almost exclusively been from Islam sympathizers of all sorts. Yet there is also another possibility that most westerners are unaware of and that is part of Islam’s ideology. It is some sort of “stealth jihad” akin to the changing demographics due to European Muslim high birthrates of the last 50 years. It is known as the Islamic doctrine of migration or hijrah.
The Muslim Migration Known as Hijrah :
Islam’s expert Robert Spencer writes: “To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act,” . He then quotes Islam’s holy book: “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful” (Quran 4:100).
While the original concept of hijrah is based on Mohammed’s flight from Mecca to Medina, it can also be applied to modern Muslim migrations. It is usually referring to leaving a country were Muslim are persecuted for one where they are welcome and can join other Muslims. But it can also refer to their moving to a non-Muslim country considered to be a “lesser evil.” This goes against every fiber of postmodernism, multiculturalism and tolerance, yet it is happening in front of our very eyes. Again, this doesn’t mean that every Muslim is to be treated as a potential terrorist, although I have no doubt that many will end up being manipulated into the radical Islamist agenda, either against their will or even unbeknownst to them.
Europe might not yet be on the edge of extinction but in light of the current refugee crisis, it is running the risk of reaching that point of no return sooner than expected. Many European countries already have a severe “native birthrate drought” and are seeing a demographic Muslim takeover. I am all in favor of helping refugees, but now is not the time to uncontrollably open borders to unknown Muslim migrants. This blurred combination of stealth jihad, demographic jihad and radical apocalyptic jihad is a lethal cocktail that Europe doesn’t seem to be able to control.
There are those who claim that the world is getting better as we are increasingly becoming more tolerant and accepting a multicultural/holistic approach to sharing our planet. I am not one of them. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in tolerance and multiculturalism (within reason and mostly within the home.) But let’s face it, the world is far from getting better. Wars and rumors of wars are on almost every continent. The Middle East sits on a powder keg with a very short fuse. Iran is very, very close to lighting the whole region ablaze. Afghanistan is still in turmoil. ISIS has infiltrated just about every country around Israel (reminiscent of an ancient biblical prophecy found in Psalm 83.) Russia is moving weapons to the region, and Syria is being destroyed by a civil war with no end in sight. This is far from what you would expect if the world was getting better. This world is in crisis mode on so many levels.
Another sign of global crisis is the recent influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Albania, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Iraq into several countries of the European Union. Sweden and Germany have been on the receiving end more than any other European country because of the myriad of benefits they offer to refugees, and the fact that Germany announced that they weren’t putting a cap on how many could come. The result has been a demographic tsunami hitting multiple borders at once. Even Greece–a bankrupt country desperately trying to rise out of its own ashes– has received several thousands of refugees.
Most of the refugees come from Syria for reasons that no decent human being would disagree with. Syria has common borders with five countries: Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel (add Cyprus by sea.) The Russian military build-up in Syria is frightening. This refugee exodus creates a humanitarian dilemma all around Syria and far beyond but it also creates a security problem for the receiving countries. Israel of course is not exempt. Mr. Netanyahu just published a statement where he affirmed that Israel wasn’t in a position to take in any refugees. I don’t think that he meant solely Syrian refugees, but this will affect them [the Syrians] the most.
Mr. Netanyahu was unequivocally clear about the refugee situation: “Israel is not indifferent to the human tragedy of the refugees from Syria and Africa. We have already devotedly cared for approximately 1,000 wounded people from the fighting in Syria and we have helped them to rehabilitate their lives. We are speaking with African heads of state, and with the Italian Prime Minister recently and with other European leaders, about multi-lateral aid packages for the countries of origin in Africa – in agriculture, economics and security – in order to deal with the problem at its source. But, Israel is a small country, a very small country, that lacks demographic and geographic depth; therefore, we must control our borders, against both illegal migrants and terrorism. This is what we have done on our border with Sinai; we blocked illegal migration from there.”
Of course, it was not long before Mr. Netanyahu was scolded by his own Israeli opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog who believes that Israel should take in refugees. Israel has often been accused of committing crimes against humanity–the latest accusations coming from multiple foes regarding the 2014 Gaza War. The humanitarian crimes have become the leitmotiv of the Palestinian Authority and other enemies. So why is it that Israel decision to not take refugees doesn’t constitute a crime against humanity?
Obviously, there are many other countries and states that cannot and will not absorb any refugees for demographic and /or geographic reasons. Israel is already struggling with it own infrastructure to receive the tens of thousands of olim (new immigrants) who just made aliyah (30,000 so far this year.) This would probably require more settlements to be developed and a further reduction of the “Palestinian boundaries” that currently exist. Would so-called “Palestinian refugees” living in Israel’s “disputed territories” be willing to share some of their real-estate? Doubtful.
If I were to make a list of reasons why Israel is right about not taking in any refugees, safety would have to be on top of that list. Once we understand that Israel is the size of New Jersey, with a constant and increasing influx of Jews returning to the land, we also have to consider what opening the borders to more people could do. A flow of unidentified people would undoubtedly include shady characters that could bring more trouble as they come in. There is no doubt in my mind that ISIS is taking advantage of the world’s postmodern tolerance. This simplifies their goal of infiltrating as many countries as they can. Israel cannot afford to have terrorists infiltrate their borders when they are already dealing with terror inland on a daily basis.
European countries like Germany, Sweden and even France are opening their doors to more crime and terrorism–something that has also worried me greatly regarding our own borders with Mexico. I want to be clear about the fact that a border between two countries doesn’t mean that refugees moving away from one into the next are all from that bordering country. Europe is starting to realize that as they see a massive number of refugees coming in from various places as well as many without any papers. These are hoping to become “instant Syrian refugees” and are banking on the asylum-offering countries tolerance for war refugees. But not all are war stricken and destitute. Many just want a better life for their families and who can really blame them?
It is also an undeniable fact that most of the refugees are Muslims. We know how difficult it has been for the West to identify radical and/or apocalyptic Islam from the rest of Islam. This refugee crisis will only exacerbate the issue.
I believe that Israel is doing the right thing by not accepting refugees but before anyone accuses me or the Jewish people of committing humanitarian crimes, we must consider all that Israel has done and continues to do around the world. As a matter of fact, Israel is helping several European countries with this very crisis by sending help as I write this. Israel has long been one of the first responders in global disasters and wars. This is the way that the only democracy in the Middle East rolls when it comes to partnering within the global village; they give, give, and give.
So, Israel not taking refugees IS NOT a humanitarian crime because there is so much more you can do to help, and they are already doing that. In many cases, they are doing much more than the very countries pointing the finger at them.
London (ANM) — In an interesting CNN interview with ex-hostage Didier Francois on Tuesday, Didier says that the militant group ISIS cares so little about religion that they did not even own or use the Quran but did try to hammer their ideological views into the hostages.
For 10 months Didier Francois was one of many hostages held in Syria by the militant group ISIS. But while he was held hostage he noticed a very important detail lacking in their ideology that the group tried to teach to the hostages, the Quran. It is mostly assumed that ISIS works straight off the Quran, the Holy Book of the Muslim religion, but Didier’s revelation challenges the idea that ISIS actually might care less about the religion, and more about their personal political agendas.
Didier claims, “There was never really discussion about texts or — it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.” Didier also states, “It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran.”
“They didn’t even have the Quran; they didn’t want even to give us a Quran.”
Francois was released in April of last year and recalls being taken hostage around June 5. He states that 19 men were kept in a room with him, including the three American men, Steven Sotloff, James Foley and Peter Kassig and three British men Alan Henning, David Haines and John Cantlie. All murdered within four months of each other in 2014.
Francois also shares that he met British ISIS convert Jihadi John while in captivity; he was one of his guards.
Curious if it were true that ISIS Brits were feared more than any other nationality in the militant group, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked what Jihadi John is like, Francois bluntly says, “You can see on the video — he’s not somebody you’d like to have to deal with.”
The United States Department of State said Wednesday it was horrified to learn the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dropped barrel bombs on the Abedin refugee camp. It called the attack “barbaric” as dozens were killed, mostly women and children. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), the two barrel bombs killed at least 60 people and wounded dozens more in the camp near Habeet.
Graphic footage uploaded to YouTube showed charred and bloodied bodies laying among olive branches and pieces of nearby tents blown apart by the bombs. Paramedics and witness were shown desperately trying to save the wounded. “It’s a massacre of refugees,” a voice off camera said. An activist on the scene told Al Jazeera that no presence of armed groups were present in the vicinity of the camp. He said the dozens of injured people were rushed to a hospital 30 minutes away.
“We are horrified by the reports that the Assad regime barrel bombed the Abedin displaced persons camp in Idlib and the images we saw of the carnage against innocent civilians,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
The attack on the Abedin camp was nothing short of barbaric.
A barrel bomb is a type of improvised explosive device (IED). They have been described as”flying IEDs”, most commonly made from a barrel filled with high explosives, possibly shrapnel, oil or chemicals, and then dropped from a low-flying helicopter or airplane. Assad continues to drop barrel bombs on densely populated Syrian neighborhoods despite the United Nations resolution passed on February 22nd banning their use.
Psaki said these attacks are “only the latest act of brutality by the regime against its own people.”
“We’ve consistently condemned the Assad regime’s callous disregard for human life, particularly its violence directed against civilians,” she added. “We’ve been clear that the Assad regime must be held responsible for its brutality and atrocities against the Syrian people.”
More than 5,000 barrel bombs have been used since the conflict began in 2011, this according to the Syrian National Council. Despite threats made by the Obama administration, these type of attacks will likely continue.
Previous barrel bomb attacks
Watch the F-22 make its combat debut:
The Pentagon’s most advanced fighter plane made its combat debut in the U.S.-led strikes on Syria overnight. The plane is one of the country’s most expensive—the F-22 program has cost $67 billion and only 188 planes have been built.
— U.S. Dept of Defense (@DeptofDefense) September 23, 2014
— U.S. Dept of Defense (@DeptofDefense) September 23, 2014
The bombing has focused on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, a city in northern Syria. ISIS has had control of Raqqa for more than a year, imposing its brutal interpretation of Islamic law on the city’s residents.
The extremists have made the city, which sits on the banks of the Euphrates River, the de facto capital of their self-declared “Islamic State” that stretches across large areas of Syria and Iraq.
ISIS targets around other Syrian cities — Deir Ezzor, Al Hasakah and Abu Kamal — were also hit in the strikes.
While the United States is still “assessing the effectiveness” of the bombing campaign against ISIS, which included up to 20 targets, the Pentagon believes “that we were successful in hitting what we were aiming at,” Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said.
Many of the targets were in and around Raqqa, Syria, believed to be an ISIS stronghold, a defense official said Monday. Several Arab nations took part in the U.S.-led operation: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the U.S. military’s Central Command said early today.
The U.S. military began striking Islamic State (ISIS) targets in Syria on Monday evening hitting targets in and around the Syrian city of Raqqa. The Syrian foreign ministry said on Tuesday that the United States informed Damascus’ envoy to the United Nations before launching airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Syria.
The ministry issued a brief statement, carried by Syrian state media, saying that “the American side informed Syria’s permanent envoy to the U.N. that strikes will be launched against the Daesh terrorist organization in Raqqa.”
The statement used an Arabic name referring to the Islamic State group, which seized large chunks of Syrian and Iraqi territory in a blitz this summer.
Rear Admiral John Kirby took to Twitter to post the US military was “using a mix of fighters, bombers and Tomahawk missiles.”
US military & partner nation forces have begun striking ISIL targets in Syria using mix of fighters, bombers and Tomahawk missiles.
— Rear Adm. John Kirby (@PentagonPresSec) September 23, 2014
ABC News reported that: Several Arab nations are involved in the ongoing U.S.-led operation, a defense official said. A diplomatic source identified the nations as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Another U.S. official said the Arab nations will be dropping bombs, not just providing support. Up to 20 locations have been targeted in the operation, many of the sites in Raqqa, the official said.
Here is an amateur video shown on Fox News allegedly of the first airstrikes hitting Syria.
These strikes come after weeks of many of the military’s top leaders urging the President on what needed to be done. President Obama had previously stated in a prime time address that the United States’ objective is to “destroy” the Islamic State terror group, while simultaneously cautioning that American combat troops will not be deployed in the effort.
“[I] want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the president said. “It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”
U.S. Central Command (Centcom) said in a statement released early Tuesday that 14 Islamic State targets were hit, including the group’s fighters, training compounds, headquarters and command and control facilities, storage facilities, a finance center, supply trucks and armed vehicles. The statement said that the operation involved 47 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles launched from the USS Arleigh Burke and USS Philippine Sea operating in the Red Sea and the North Arabian Gulf. Officials told Fox News that B-1 bombers, F-16 and F-18 fighters, and Predator drones were also used. The F-18s flew missions off the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf.
There will certainly be more to this developing story.
*This story has been updated.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and partner nations began launching airstrikes against Islamic State group targets in Syria for the first time Monday night, expanding a military campaign against the militants with a mix of fighter jets, bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from ships in the region.
The strikes were part of the expanded military campaign that President Barack Obama’s authorized nearly two weeks ago in order to disrupt and destroy the Islamic State militants, who have slaughtered thousands of people, beheaded Westerners, including two American journalists, and captured a large swath of territory stretching from within Syria to land across northern and western Iraq.
Because the military operation was ongoing, no details could be provided yet, said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon’s press secretary. He said the decision to strike was made earlier Monday by the military. He did not name the partner nations participating in the operation; however U.S. officials have said the U.S. would not launch this mission alone and some Arab nations had been expected to participate.
Some of the airstrikes of airstrikes were against Islamic State group targets in Raqqa. Military officials have said the U.S. would target militants’ command and control centers, re-supply facilities, training camps and other key logistical sites.
Read more from the Associated Press.
I’ve been working on this column for over a week, with the ineptness of the Obama Administration taking so many turns that it makes a West Virginia back road look like the Salt Flats, it has been more than difficult. What I can say is that as President Obama heads into yet another foreign policy disaster for the United States we have to ask ourselves, does he possess any qualities of a leader? Say what you will about George W. Bush, he had leadership qualities and those qualities shine even greater when matched up next to Obama. There are great contrasts with Iraq and Syria but there are glaring similarities. On one hand we have a country, with dubious acquaintances, who doesn’t like the United States, & they possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. On the other hand you have a country embroiled in a three year civil war compared to a country who was a threat to the entire region. We have in both cases a rogue dictator who has shown a propensity to use chemical weapons on their own civilian population. In Assad have a person who appears in all of the “B-roll” footage of him to act like a quiet, reserved, and reasonable president & former ophthalmologist while with Saddam we had an almost madman who was always trying to hype up his people and who fired pistols in the air at rallies to celebrate himself. Don’t take that as an endorsement of Assad, I’m certain he is a brutal despot, but he knows better than Saddam did that if he appears that way on the world stage that it is easier to impugn him.
On August 20, 2012, Barack Obama, in the middle of a presidential race needed to appear strong. When asked about what would get the United States involved in the Syrian civil war answered: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” The off-the-cuff remark made by a man who operates most times with a teleprompter was when he drew his “Red Line”. This started the trouble for President Obama because he made a remark as “the most powerful man in the world” and not living up to it made him look weak.
Well, Syria moved the chemical weapons and President Obama did nothing. Then they used them the first time and he did nothing. It wasn’t until the third time of Syria crossing Obama’s “red line” did we hear the bluster of military force. With no real plan or even a real threat of action Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama started talking about using military action to stop the Assad regime. They were so inept at bringing their message to our international partners that we first lost the U.K., our closest ally, and the British Parliament voted against going into Syria. The spin was that this was Bush’s fault because of Iraqi & WMD’s. The Brits didn’t want any part of Syria because PM David Cameron didn’t have from Obama a clear cut strategy and mission outlined with the U.S. acting in either a humanitarian or military role & our allies didn’t support us. Instead we got France. Instead of a coalition of over 50 countries as we had with Iraq we have 2 countries and one of them is so historically feckless that an eighth grade Boy Scout troop could over run them. Seeing the reaction of the American public, & what I believe was an attempt to remove his responsibility, President Obama and Secretary Kerry said they would not intervene in Syria without congressional approval. Citing that he still had the power to do so he tried to sound benevolent in seeking congressional approval. Forget all of what the President said over the past six years about President Bush getting us involved in the Iraq War. His double speak now was not designed to save the Syrian children from sarin gas attacks, it was about saving his credibility on the world stage and with the American people.
Enter Vladimir Putin. Putin has likely been pulling strings behind the scenes on the matter for longer than this, he voiced publicly his lack of support for an international coalition or U.S. strike against Syria leading to the G20 summit in Russia. At a press conference in Sweden on his way to the G20 President Obama tries to back out of his own “red line” comment by saying “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line”, and the Obama spin machine went to work trying to sell the international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons as the world’s red line, even though Syria never signed this treaty. After publicly humiliating Obama when it came to the Edward Snowden affair Putin once again had President Obama outwitted in a game of chess with international intrigue. The two met at the G20 summit and it ended with ten countries signing a letter that voiced opposition to military intervention in Syria. Support for the strike eroded even more at home and the President and Secretary of State were both put even more on the defensive. Facing a brutal defeat in the House and possibly in the democrat controlled Senate the President was backed into a corner.
The weekend played out with the Obama administration announcing that the President would do six TV interviews and one would even include Fox News, and we started a new week. Kerry at a press conference in the U.K. tried to pull off a bit of snark. When a reporter asked him what it would take to keep the U.S. from using military action in Syria, he replied, “turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week… but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done”. Again an off the cuff remark is about to get the Administration in trouble. In a move obviously orchestrated to undermine Obama the Russian foreign minister says that Russia loves that idea. They have open channels of communication with Syria and their foreign minister as well states that Syria would be open to the idea if it would fend off “U.S. aggression”. That idea played out throughout the day and must have driven the Obama Administration crazy leading into his TV interviews that evening. Again his spin was that this idea had been floated at the G20 & that this plan would never have been put forward had it not been for the threat of military action. Now Putin has painted Obama in another corner with the demand that this plan cannot go forward without the U.S. promising that military action is off the table. For this the Syrians say they will even sign the international ban on the use of chemical weapons. So Obama gave a speech tonight, it included a history lesson on the use of chemical weapons & a FAQ section on Syria, however it still didn’t include a reasonable plan of action for Syria although he took credit for Kerry’s gaffe. We are a country without a leader.