Month: November 2015

ISIS Sympathizer At The China Post: “Leave ISIS Alone!”

If there's a murderous, anti-Western, anti-democratic government to be found, Joe Hung will be there to lick its boots. Or sandals, as the case may be.

Barack Obama should stop his Crusade against ISIS now, demands Hung:

Obama still has time to reconsider [his] new Crusade, lest he should repeat President Bush's folly by getting the United States mired ever more deeply in the Middle East quagmire.

A competent historian would never say Obama was engaged in a Crusade, for the simple reason that Obama's not trying to recover formerly Christian lands in the Middle East.

(It helps, when one accuses another of launching a Crusade, to have some familiarity with the actual DEFINITION of the word…)

Moving along, ISIS's grotesque little apologist in Taipei asserts the Islamofascist group cannot be fought because it's invincible:

Even supposing the new Crusaders succeeded in toppling the IS caliphate, suicidal terrorism could never be stopped. Caliph al Baghdadi has ordered a jihad. There would not be any lack of mujahideen. Hundreds of thousands of his followers are willing and ready to die in a holy war against the Western imperialists who they believe are launching the new Crusade.

No, 'fraid not. A caliph's religious and political legitimacy rests necessarily upon his control over TERRITORY. Remove his control over land and his legitimacy vanishes. After which, the orders of a phony caliph carry no weight.

Speaking of al-Baghdadi's legitimacy, supermajorities in Middle Eastern countries have a unfavorable opinion of ISIS and regard al-Baghdadi's self-proclaimed position as illegitimate. Read into it what you will that an agnostic Confucian like Joe Hung finds al-Baghdadi more legitimate than the vast majority of Muslims do.

Chart showing ISIS support among Arabs in various Muslim countries.

(Chart showing 85% of all Middle Easterners regard ISIS with disfavor.)

Finally, Joe Hung suggests that because ISIS is invincible, it should be left alone to bring peace to the region, the way the Ottoman Caliphate did in years previous:

There was no trouble in the Middle East while the caliphs of the Ottoman Empire ruled it for more than 400 years.

This is all highly unconvincing, since according to Islamic law, a caliph is REQUIRED to wage at least one war every year against Infidel nations.

An ISIS caliphate is therefore likely to create A GREAT DEAL of trouble outside the Middle East, regardless of what happens inside. (Just as the Ottomans made incessant war on Eastern Europe and the Balkans.)

And as for his fanciful prospects of ISIS pacifying the Middle East, Joe Hung forgets the presence of 6 million Jews and many more million Shiites in the region, whom ISIS is unlikely to leave unmolested.

Joe Hung of Taiwan's China Post: 'Allahu ackbar, O Children of Pigs and Apes! My favorite parts of ISIS’s Mohammedan program are the rapes, genocide, torture, decapitations, immolations, crucifixions, slavery...and probably the rapes!'

Um, you said "rapes" twice.

6 Yazidi women cower in a corner in fear from 2 ISIS terrorists. Below, Joe Hung of Taiwan's China Post says: 'Hey, you two! Quit hoggin' all that moist Yazidi slave cooch!'

POSTSCRIPT: Joe Hung invents "facts" to satisfy his narrative:

As a matter of fact, one result of the Crusades, during which Jews were massacred by Crusaders in a pogrom, was the birth of Zionism, which finally triumphed with the creation of Israel. [Emphasis added]

Comrade Historian is apparently unaware that Zionism (like many other forms of nationalism) was largely a product of the 19th century.

i-3

Taiwanese Cry Foul Over Obama Shout-Out

The other day Barack Obama publicly praised Taiwan for its humanitarian contributions for refugees from the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars, leading Taiwanese who would normally not agree with each other to react with anger and alarm at being placed into ISIS's crosshairs.

First, Chinese nationalists at Taiwan's China Post:

…Obama's statement has not generated the [favorable] traffic that might be expected on [Taiwanese] social media. When it is mentioned, Obama's Taiwan mention is…greeted with a "why us?" analysis.

The U.S. president knows full well that naming Taiwan in such a way will, to a degree, put Taiwan on the terrorists' map…

And second, Taiwanese nationalists at the Taipei Times:

US President Barack Obama naming Taiwan as one of the US’ partners in the global battle against terrorism might have come across as a nod to the nation’s aid to Syrian refugees to some, but his remarks at the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur were not only hypocritical, but have put the nation in danger of being targeted by Muslim extremists.

[…]

As with any talks at the international level, the two parties [KMT & DPP], intentionally or otherwise, have sent a clear message not only to IS, but also to Obama: “Keep Taiwan out of your fight.”

I'm gonna zag where readers might expect me to zig, and defend Obama on this one. (Or rather, not so much defend him as to place the blame elsewhere — on Ma Ying-jeou and Taiwan's KMT government.)

Taiwan's humanitarian contributions to alleviate the Syrian crisis are presumably not on some sort of top-secret budget, but are a matter of public knowledge in Taiwan as well as parts of the Middle East. The China Post elucidates the composition of Taiwan's aid:

The nation donated prefabricated houses, LED lamps and medical supplies worth nearly US$10 million in recent years in humanitarian assistance through the U.S. and relevant countries to refugees and other people affected by terrorism and war in the Middle East, according [to Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs].

It seems to me that if the Taiwanese government wanted its donations kept on the q.t., the onus was on it to communicate this wish — clearly & firmly — to the U.S.

It certainly had ample time to do so…YEARS of time, in fact.

So yes, Obama should be faulted for not understanding how ISIS's attacks on one U.S. ally (France) might cause nervousness on the part of a lesser player like Taiwan. But that does not absolve Ma Ying-jeou's administration from the responsibility it had for informing the American government about its desire to avoid the attention of the monstrous Islamofascist organization, ISIS.

Amidst all the finger-pointing at Barack Obama, the KMT's failure in this matter should not forgotten, either.

POSTSCRIPT: I've even seen a "Downfall" parody on this subject. Not knowing Chinese, I can't speak to its quality or lack thereof.

UPDATE: The China Post whistles past the graveyard:

Also, IS does not consider Taiwan an enemy. The monetary and humanitarian support Taiwan gives the American-led coalition is insignificant. The new caliphate feels no need to retaliate against Taiwan.

How do you know that? You got a secret hotline to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?

And if so, do you believe everything he tells you?

Widows-And-Orphans Flock To ISIS

Despite its Muslim radicalization problem, America to enlarge its pool of ISIS recruits:

A new report by Congress says more than 250 Americans have attempted to join ISIS, and one in four of them is from Minnesota, many of them former refugees. [Emphasis added]

Letting more in sounds like stupid stuff.

UPDATE (November 29, 2015): The Taipei Times ran an opinion piece falsely equating opposition to Western settlement of Syrian refugees with the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans.

What the writer of the piece fails to understand is that during war, one does not invite foreign nationals from hostile countries to settle in one's territory because of the obvious security threat. What is less obvious is that Japanese-Americans — not foreign nationals, but American citizens — required internment. (Particularly since German-Americans and Italian-Americans were not subject to the same requirement.)

I contend that citizens of Western nations have a right to have a say in their countrys' immigration policies, and are well within their rights to reject immigration of refugees who are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-atheist.

Finally, it should also be noted that Taiwan has not offered to settle Syrian refugees in its territory, and that some of Taiwan's politicians resist immigration from Communist China on similar grounds (namely, due to national security concerns as well as the pro-unification attitudes presumably held by such immigrants).

Is That You, Bevin Chu?

"The Paris attacks were an inside job!" bellows crazed Palestinian imam from his pulpit.

Note how this nutjob rants that Islam's been falsely blamed for the murder of Frenchmen…and then later calls upon his foul deity to exterminate every living Frenchman.

UPDATE (December 1, 2015): Is that you, Bevin Chu? Another Muslim cleric claims the Paris attacks were a false flag operation.

Educated Savage Adnan R. Amin: “Stop Otherizing Muslim Terrorists!”

Bizarre stuff from Taiwan’s China Post:

“Persisting with selective memory, fuzzy logic and contrived debates is what sustains global terrorism.”

Really? Now, I would have guessed that al-Baghdadi and al-Zawahiri are motivated less by “selective memory, fuzzy logic and contrived debates” and more by Islamic Supremacist ideology. But what Mr. Amin says must be true, since it was published in a KMT funny paper.

Adnan R. Amin, words cannot express the anguish I feel over my PC WrongThink. Rest assured I shall spend the next several months wracked with grief, spending long sleepless nights tossing and turning in nightmares of guilt.

How dare I condemn as “terrorists” men who send death squads into nightclubs to gun down scores of civilians? Should men who rape infidel women purchased in slave markets really be considered “terrorists”?

Well, I used to think so. But thanks to Adnan R. Amin, I have come to see the error of my ways. Praise be to Adnan R. Amin!

And so I do make this solemn vow: Never again shall this lowly First Worlder hurt the all-important feelings of men I once referred to as terrorists by calling them “terrorists”.

Nope. From now on I shall only use the Obama-approved term for brave warriors of the Religion Of Peace™: namely, “widows-and-orphans”.

Fat ISIS terrorist raising 1 finger in front of iron fence with 5 human heads impaled on fence spikes. A man in the background adds 2 more heads to the grisly scene.

(Mommy, why did the nice bearded “widow-and-orphan” otherize those men on the fence spikes?)

UPDATE: Well, looky here. ISIS itself refers to its people as “Soldiers Of Terror”.

ISIS magazine titled, 'Soldiers of Terror'. The cover shows a bloody victim of an ISIS terror attack being carried by four other people.

So at this point, I’m kinda thinkin’ that if ISIS calls its own footsoldiers “terrorists”, then it’s probably OK for everyone else, too.

And I’m also kinda thinkin’…that Adnan R. Amin is terrorist apologist who’s full of shit.

UPDATE (November 22, 2015): I was awfully harsh on Adnan R. Amin in writing this post last night. But I think my reaction was entirely justified.

What Adnan R. Amin is attempting to do is destroy the very valuable civilizational norm that prohibits sending death squads to massacre civilians. That’s not really terrorism, says Adnan R. Amin, it’s…well, he doesn’t say. Legitimate resistance, perhaps?

But once people begin excusing Muslims deliberately targeting and massacring Infidel civilians, others will follow their lead and excuse terrorist massacres of Muslim civilians.

And we’ll wind up with more Anders Breiviks.

UPDATE (November 23, 2015): The mind boggles:

i-2

How Many Terrorists Can Be Expected Among Syrian Refugees?

There's been a certain amount of hyperbole on this blog of late regarding refugees from Syria. This has been somewhat unavoidable, given the fact that virtually every day over the past week some monstrous new outrage has been perpetrated by Muslim radicals somewhere across the globe.

So it must be said that, of course, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But it must also be admitted that Western nations will not merely be accepting "widows and orphans." It is therefore inevitable that there will be some finite number of terrorists mingled within the cohort of refugees that are granted asylum. So the question is: How can we estimate this number?

Fortunately, this poll from the Doha Institute can give us a general idea. The following chart illustrates the number of Syrian refugees who have a favorable view of the Islamofascist group known as ISIS:

Chart showing ISIS support among Arabs in various Muslim countries.

(Image from page 19 of "The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant: Arab Public Opinion")

As can be seen, 13% of Syrian refugees have a favorable or partly favorable view of ISIS. If America accepts 10,000 Syrian refugees, 1,300 of them will view the terrorist group favorably to some extent. I contend that, at the very least, such views will not be conducive to good citizenship among these thirteen hundred people.

(Obviously, the situation faced by Germany is far worse, which can expect 104,000 of 800,000 Syrian refugees to have somewhat favorable views of ISIS.)

However, only 4% of Syrian refugees view ISIS with full approval, so America can expect to receive only 400 hardcore ISIS supporters. (While Germany faces the nightmarish prospect of receiving 32,000 ISIS partisans concentrated within a far smaller geographical area — a veritable small invasion force, should it ever be so motivated.)

But most likely, support for ISIS will not translate into action for the vast majority of even hardcore supporters, so only a small fraction of America's 400 (or Germany's 32,000) can be expected to turn to terrorism.

I'm tempted to put that fraction at 1%, but that would simply be a wild guess.

POSTSCRIPT: The above analysis makes a number of assumptions:

1) There are no ISIS infiltrators mingled in with genuine refugees. I believe there will most certainly be a few, but I have no basis whatsoever for estimating their number.

2) The refugees have zero support for other terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or al-Nusra. It is clearly nonsensical to suppose so, but the poll did not ask refugees whether they supported other terrorist groups, and more importantly, the refugees were not asked about their support for ALL terrorist groups in general.

Given that al-Qaeda & al-Nusra is said to be more popular that ISIS among Syrian refugees, I think it reasonable to add 25% to the final numbers (425 hardcore terrorist supporters in the U.S., and 40,000 in Germany).

(If I was hyping the numbers I suppose I could double them, but it must be remembered that a large number of ISIS supporters will most likely view al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups favorably as well. Due to the considerable overlap, the stated additional 25% seems more reasonable.)

3) Governments are completely ineffective in screening against ISIS supporters. An indeterminate number will no doubt be weeded out, should members of the bureaucracy be inclined to do so.

However, I'm left with a disquieting thought: In some PC quarters, firebrands and holders of extreme views are thought to represent a more "authentic" (and therefore, more desirable) type of Islam. And so I ask: Is it possible that portions of the bureaucracy might in fact positively select IN FAVOR of individuals predisposed to conducting terrorist acts against their newly adopted countries?

UPDATE (November 21, 2015): Greek security forces insist discerning terrorists from legitimate refugees is almost impossible.

i-1

House Of Representatives Votes Overwhelmingly To Suspend Obama’s Syrian Resettlement Plan

Including 57 Democrats. Interesting.

But my working assumption is still that Obama will get his way, regardless of public opposition.

Barack Obama with extended middle finger: 'Those 57 Democrats are UN-AMERICAN. If only we had a COMMITTEE to investigate their activities...'

i-1