Category: Islamofascism – Middle East

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

Not Dropping Bombs On ISIS Is Exactly What ISIS Wants

Shades of Neville Chamberlain's Phony War here:

U.S. President Finger-Up-His-Ass prohibits 75% of all American airstrikes on ISIS with excessively restrictive Rules Of Engagement

Meanwhile:

Russia has destroyed 500 ISIS fuel trucks over the past few days.

Presumably, no warnings were issued beforehand…

In America, First You Kill The Kuffar, Then You Find The Slave Market, Then You Buy The Women

Don't blame him for the crimes of his evil twin.

POSTSCRIPT: I know nothing about the provenance of these photos, and some skepticism is in order. But even assuming the worst (ie: that they're faked or exaggerated), the larger point that terrorists wish to gain entry into America still nonetheless holds true.

Only 28% Of U.S. Population Agrees With America’s Messiah

The rest of you have angered Him greatly. Report immediately to local indoctrination camps for mandatory sensitivity training and frontal lobotomies:

Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks [by Muslim death squads in Paris], say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims…

Summing up American views of Obama's Syrian refugee relocation plan:

  • 53% — want Obama's plan killed outright
  • 11% — want only Syrian Christians to be eligible
  • 8% — no opinion
  • 28% — want Obama's plan implemented

Increasingly isolated (even within his own party) and with only 28% popular support for his terrorist importation scheme, little wonder Barack Obama's rhetoric has become so strident of late.

Barack Obama extending middle finger: 'Given that only 28% of Americans agree with me, I can only conclude that the other 72% are UN-AMERICAN.'

i-1

Obama Gets Desperate

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the widows and orphans!

"Apparently [Republicans] are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America. At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of 3-year-old orphans. That doesn't seem so tough to me." [Emphasis added]

Said the big, tough guy who imprisons makers of crappy YouTube videos.†

But Barack Obama did say something I found myself agreeing with:

"We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic," Obama said. "We don't make good decisions if it's based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks."

There, you're absolutely right. No reasonable person could disagree with tha— OH FUCK!!!!! DID THAT NICE YOUNG TSARNAEV REFUGEE-BOY JUST BLOW THAT MAN'S FUCKING LEG OFF?!?

Boston Bombing victim - man with lost leg (all that remains is the bare shin bone)

Why, yes. Yes, he did.

Your transparent guilt-trip only works when people stop caring about their loved ones, Barry.

Let me know when that happens.

† And who's protected by a large Secret Service detail. And who pisses his pants when answering questions from Fox News…

UPDATE (November 22, 2015): Legally, the Tsarnaev family were permitted to remain in the U.S. not because they were refugees but because they claimed political asylum.

The ultimate point still holds: They were granted residency for humanitarian reasons, and repaid America's kindness by butchering Americans.

i-1