Mali: Multiple condemnations after terrorist attack between Songho and Bandiagara
Between fear and indignation, the condemnations come in a flurry after the armed attack perpetrated against a truck en route to the fair at Bandiagara on Friday, December 3, 2021.
Unidentified armed bandits attacked and burned a truck transporting fairgoers, reported a government statement, which established that 31 people died, 17 were wounded, and the truck was incinerated.
The government presents its “saddest condolences to the bereaved families and reassures the public that all measures will be taken to arrest and punish the perpetrators of this ignoble and tragic act,” the statement says.
This tragedy has brought reactions from several parties across the national political spectrum. Rally for Mali (RPM) condemned the “cowardly and barbaric attack against civilians”. The Weaver Party, “bows before the memory of the innocents, and wishes a prompt recovery to the wounded.”
In the same vein, Parena (Party for National Rebirth) “energetically condemns this appalling massacre and asks the authorities to search, by every means, for the barbarians and their accomplices who committed this monstrous crime, to bring them to justice.” The party also expresses its “compassion and presents its condolences to the grieving families of the victims.”
Other parties have reacted, such as the Adema-PASI (African Party for Solidarity and Justice), which condemns with firmness “this barbaric attack,” while saluting the “promptness with which medical aid and the military were deployed.”
For its part, Codem (Convergence for the Development of Mali) condemns a “cowardly and barbaric attack and presents its condolences to the families of the victims and the entire Mali nation in this painful circumstance.”
In a statement published on Saturday December 4, the special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in Mali, El-Ghassim Wane, condemns with firmness “an ignoble attack”. The head of the Minusma also presents his “condolences to the bereaved families and wishes a prompt recovery to the injured, as well to the government and the entire Malian people”.
The clip below shows what “due process of law” means in Pakistan.
A man from Sri Lanka was accused of blasphemy and lynched by an angry mob, who set him on fire while he was still alive. The footage, interestingly enough, was found on Twitter. It was included in this article from The Times of India.
Yog, who sent the tip about the incident, says that the victim’s name was Priyantha Kumara Dinawadhana, and he was a Buddhist.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
The text from the accompanying article:
A man in Pakistan was lynched and set on fire alive by the mob in Sialkot over charges of blasphemy. The victim was a Sri Lankan national who worked as a manager in a Sri Lankan textile firm in Pak. The workers of the factory accused him of blasphemy and attacked the man.
Last summer I posted about the murder of a Swedish policeman named Andreas Danman by a 17-year-old Somali culture-enricher named Sakariye Ali Ahmed. The killing took place in a no-go zone in the Biskopsgården neighborhood of the city of Gothenburg.
Master Ahmed has since been tried and convicted of murder, and a sentence has been handed down. The Swedish court really threw the book at him: eight years in prison! And we all know how harsh the conditions are in Swedish prisons, so Master Ahmed is certain to repent of his crime.
The video below is taken from a news report on the trial, before the verdict was reached. The defendant seems to be using “I don’t remember — I was high” as an element of his defense.
I wonder how you say “dindu nuffin” in Swedish…
Below is an article (also translated by Gary Fouse) from a different source, the conservative news outlet Nyheter Idag. It doesn’t mention cannabis, but some bien-pensants are actually saying the sentence is too harsh:
TV4 after verdict against police murderer: “How do you defend eight years in prison?”
Gothenburg: Sakariye Ahmed, 17, has been sentenced to eight years in prison for murdering the policeman Andreas Danman, and attempted murder, in Biskopsgården in Gothenburg. TV4 News commentator Jens Lapidus thinks that the sentence was unusually harsh, and TV4’s reporter “pins court spokesman, Goran Lundahl, against the wall” ([Translator’s note: Presses him or puts him on the defensive].
How do you defend 8 years in prison? asks TV4’s reporter.
17-year-old Sakariye Ahmed has been sentenced in the Gothenburg district court to eight years in prison for the murder of policeman Andreas Danman and attempted murder on June 30 of this year
Danman was shot to death with a k-pistol, and according to the prosecutor, Ahmed intended to shoot enemies in a rival gang when Danman came riding on an unmarked black moped and was shot.
The author and lawyer Jens Lapidus commented on the sentence to TV4 and says that he is surprised that Sakariye has been sentenced to a relatively harsh punishment.
“It is really unusual to sentence a 17-year-old to prison, and I would have thought that the reduction would be a little more, that he might get seven years or six years, but now he gets eight,” Lapidus says to TV4 News.
When TV4 interviewed the court spokesman Goran Lundahl, the reporter asks Lundahl how the court “defends” giving Sakariye eight years in prison.
“We have just heard our commentator, Jens Lapidus, talk about how this is seen as a really harsh punishment. How do you defend eight years in prison?” asks TV4’s reporter.
“Yes, it’s because we see this act as very serious. I agree that it is a harsh punishment,” answers Lundahl, and continues: “But this involves a shooting that occurred in the middle of a residential area with a weapon that has no legal use, which is powerful, where there are people out and about as part of an ongoing gang conflict. And so we believe that murder for an adult would result in life imprisonment.”
Sakariye was previously convicted of a series of crimes, including attempted murder with a knife in November 2019. On that occasion, Sakariye was sentenced to one year of juvenile detention.
Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan has the latest on the endless political crisis in The Netherlands, which is exacerbated (or augmented, depending on one’s preference) by the endless coronavirus “pandemic”.
Covid-19, a gift from the gods
by H. Numan
You know who owes his position to the curse of China? Joe Biden. Without the Covid-19 pandemic he hadn’t a hope in hell of getting elected. The DNC smelled an opportunity and ran with it. By now Joe probably lacks the cognitive abilities to realize that. The man is declining rapidly. He isn’t the only one to benefit massively from the Covid crisis.
In Holland we had elections in the beginning of March. After that… nothing. Do the math: those elections were nine months ago. If you impregnated your wife on the eve of the elections, you’d be a proud father by now. I’m pretty sure we won’t find a new cabinet in our shoe on 5 December, and Father Christmas isn’t going to bring one, either. Why?
dearly beloved prime minister Mark Rutte ran three cabinets. It has never happened that a PM chaired four cabinets. He wants the distinction of becoming the longest-ruling Dutch PM ever. No matter the consequences. Like Biden, it doesn’t matter at all to him if he were to be rated the worst PM ever. As long as he gets the distinction of being the longest-ruling.
For him, the Covid-19 crisis is a blessing. He is ruling the country as demissionary PM, but with emergency powers, due to the crisis. Rutte openly said that he didn’t mind at having his cabinet resign. You can’t fire a cabinet that has already resigned. Now he can do more or less what he wants.
Negotiations are dragging on. Of course the results of the elections were almost impossible to work with. There was no clear winner. Rutte’s VVD party won, but that is looking at the numbers only. In reality he lost two seats. Not a lot, much less than the VVD deserves. The winner was the D66 party with Sigrid Al Qaq-Kaag. She did everything possible to become the new PM. Again, look at the numbers. Her party stands at a total of 24 seats. That’s much less than Rutte with 34 seats.
Her tactic was to gain a majority within the cabinet by inviting two socialist parties, PvdA (Labor) and GL (GreenLeft, ex-communists). That way D66 could form a block with PvdA and GL, outvoting the other coalition partners. In such a cabinet the VVD would be a minority party, despite having the most votes and the PM. Of course Rutte refused that; it just took many months before he did so.
Now they are muddling along to see if the present coalition can be extended. Why? Because nothing else will work. Geert Wilders did all right, but not overly so. He stands at 17 seats. A real conservative cabinet would require no less than seven parties, and that is simply not going to happen. So we will enter the new year without a new government. Rutte happily muddles along.
There’s another reason why Rutte is very happy with Covid-19: now he can ban fireworks. For decades this has been a hot political potato. A growing majority wants fireworks to be banned. A very vocal minority doesn’t. That very vocal minority ran amok in Rotterdam a week ago. Who? According to the police mostly hooligans. Add to that, juveniles with a phobia for pork and beer. Something the police forgot to mention.
Fireworks in The Netherlands can only be bought legally by anyone over 16 years from 12 December until 31 December. You can’t let them off; that is only legal on 31 December from 2pm until 1 January at 4am.The problem is, nobody abides by those rules. Lots of kids (usually boys) roam the streets during their Christmas break having fun with fireworks. Every year insurance companies have to pay out 30 to 70 million euros in damages. Every year all emergency services have to do overtime with every officer available to minimize havoc. Every year houses are burned to the ground and lots of people loose eyes and hands due to mishandling fireworks.
Every year lots of sellers are penalized for storing tons of unreliable fireworks insecurely. Very often a garden center or tobacconist makes some extra money by selling fireworks. Not outright to minors, but hey. If a bloke of 18 comes in surrounded by a bunch of kids of 10-12, what do you think? Storing a couple of tons of explosives in the attic or basement is pretty much standard.
Is Islam a threat?
by Jose do Carmo
A few days ago, someone said to me that in his opinion, Islam is a religion like others, and he casually rejected the idea that it was a threat to the rich, strong, and civilized West.
Are there really no reasons to fear?
Well, beyond the very clear and explicit exhortations to violence and conquest, which can be read in the sacred texts of Islam, it is always history that shows us that since this religion emerged about 1,400 years ago, Muslims have consistently followed the Koranic command to make war on the infidels, on the House of War.
As a result, almost 75% of what was then called “Christendom” was definitively conquered by the House of Islam, including all of North Africa, Anatolia, Syria, etc.
Many European territories were under Muslim occupation, at times for centuries, from Portugal to Russia, passing through Spain, France, Italy, Ukraine, Lithuania, Serbia, Romania, etc. etc, only being liberated by force of arms.
More than 15 million Europeans were captured and enslaved in the name of jihad, in a process that lasted until the 19th century, reaching faraway Iceland. In fact, one of the first external wars waged by the USA (Jefferson and Adams) was precisely against the Muslim slavers, with Portugal as an ally.
All in all, for more than 1,000 years, Islam has been the principal and permanent threat to Western Civilization and has always been on the offensive when the relative potential of combat has been in its favor.
In the 20th century, Europe modernized itself and managed to neutralize jihad, but now seems to have forgotten everything about this old and constant threat.
For many Westerners, Islam is just a religion like others, and some, without knowing anything of history and the texts, even proclaim that it is “a religion of peace”.
No, it is not.
What history tells us is that it is the most formidable and persistent enemy that our civilization has faced up to today, and this has not changed just because circumstantially, we believe that we are on top.
The major problem, still, is not the forgetting of history, but its rewriting, so that it fits into new, politically correct narratives.
And this woke narrative, conveyed in the schools, in the media, and in the cinema, is that Muslims are part of the extensive group of historical victims of the West, that is, of the “heteropatriarchal whites” or by definition, the “oppressor”.
For example, the Crusades, effectively a military reaction to the Islamic conquest of the so-called Christian holy places, is described as a cruel and unjust attack on the poor Muslims, who were peacefully in their lands drinking tea and smoking water pipes. Moreover, the Muslim invasions are not even described as such, rather as innocuous “advances” by Arabs, Moors, Almoravids, Tatars, Mamluks, Ottomans, etc., deliberately hiding their true rational aggregate, jihad against the infidel.
But that is history, the appeasers will say. That time has passed. We have to look to the future and enter into a new era of mutual respect and tolerance, even if to do this, we have to gild history a bit.
We are approaching Endgame after more than a hundred years of the Culture Wars. In the essay below MC picks his way through the grotesque highlights of what is currently underway.
Most modern medicine assumes that God does not exist, and that mankind (‘experts’) must therefore control medical ethics in order to ensure that doctors and others with an interest in medicine do not sacrifice their ethical integrity in order to either maximize their wealth from an exceedingly profitable industry, nor pursue greater knowledge at the expense of the health of their patients.
In 1947, following cruel and murderous experimentation by seemingly normal doctors on inmates of concentration camps in Nazi Germany, international law was laid down concerning human experimentation, coercion and informed consent.
These laws are now being violated on a daily basis by politicians, doctors, nurses and health administrators who advocate and enforce the COVID-19 vaccine. This is not new; it is an old, old story. We are back to bleeding, scoring and purging, leeches and mercury; the medicine of barbers and barbarity.
The Covid vaccine is experimental, and under the Nuremburg and Helsinki LAWS, it cannot be mandated. YOU cannot be forced to violate your bodily integrity — even if granny is in danger.
But granny is not in danger, at least in any statistical sense any more than she usually is, and if she were to take the correct prophylactic treatment to raise her zinc and vitamin D levels then her chances of surviving a CV19 attack are much improved. Unfortunately, it seems, the Powers That Be in medicine and politics want her dead, so they are withholding the real science and the real medicine from her. Granny dead from Covid is a bounty that can be collected…
The ‘science’ as dictated by the government/Big Pharma alliance is to leave CV19 granny alone until her lips turn blue, then put her on a killer ventilator until she dies. For this, a hospital gets a substantial government grant. She is a useless eater — Aktion T4 for her. Do we inject her with phenol, gas her, or put a plastic bag over her head? No, we withhold crucial and effective treatment and inject her with an experimental gene therapy — and this is ethically acceptable?
We are so, so ignorant, we don’t realize that although all the names have changed, the methods have not.
On the whole, the billionaires who are financing this modern Holodomor are stupid frightened individuals who believe in a humanist-based cult whereby:
- There are too many people on the planet.
- The planet is being poisoned by too much ‘carbon’
- That the ultra-rich are entitled to rule over all other groups and use all available resources.
- That Islam, by its ultra-controlling influence, can be used to divide and rule dangerous ‘Christian’ populations.
- That fossil fuels can be replaced by ‘batteries’ (where does the electricity come from to charge the batteries?).
- That solar and wind power can provide enough energy for the remnant population to survive.
- That putting God at the centre of the Constitution in 1776-1784 had no effect on the subsequent rise of the American Dream; it was purely a coincidence.
- And that removing God from society is therefore no problem and will not turn the dream into a nightmare.
It is difficult for us to understand the role of God in society, for without God, societies are basically two-tier master/slave societies where the masters work hard to keep the peons in abject slavery.
In the historical British feudal system, the serfs were largely village idiots, kept in a state of abject poverty and malnutrition. The role of the then-Church was to perpetuate the system by removing any intelligent children at an early age into the cloisters for special indoctrination. Wise lords of the manor also took bright children into their service, thus removing leaders from the peasant body.
Britain at the time did not have a skin colour problem; everybody was white. Even in my childhood 1950s England was overwhelmingly white, I had seen non-white people because I had travelled to Singapore as a very young ‘britbrat’ (child of armed forces personnel), but to others in my class at school, they were an abstract from the pages of National Geographic and Hollywood.
The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published in September 2014 at LibertyGB (as “BBC Draws A Veil Over Islamic State”), then edited in 2021.
BBC Misinformation: Islamic State
by Michael Copeland
“What does Islamic State want? They want to enforce their view of conservative Islamic traditions.” — BBC
This appallingly inadequate statement is on the BBC’s 6o-second video. It is, in fact, the only statement in it that actually answers their own question.
No, BBC, Islamic State apply Islamic law, Sharia, by force. They not only “want to” but are already doing so. To refer to Sharia as “their view of conservative Islamic traditions” is shameful, dishonest, and inadequate. No author is shown.
The BBC is being careful to draw the spotlight away from Islam itself. To throw the reader off the scent they are nourishing the propaganda line that Islamic State is not Islamic, that they are pursuing “their idea” which, we are left to suppose, is somehow mistaken. Notice that the text skillfully does not actually say so, but leaves that conclusion to be formed by the reader. There is no mention of law or religion: oh no, only of “conservative traditions”. This is an old chestnut, and a tired and worn one at that. Remember the British detective helpfully assuring the public that a murder (a Muslim honour-killing) was nothing to do with Islam (which it is), but was a product of conservative cultural practices of rural Pakistan? How touching that an English policeman be so expert on tribal practices of rural South Asia! So sensitive!
No: Islamic State is applying Islam. The leader has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, unlike Mr. Cameron, so is well-informed. He has proclaimed himself Caliph, in the same way as earlier Caliphs did. As Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem) of Sharia4Belgium has helpfully explained, “Islam is Sharia, and Sharia is Islam.” The Caliph is enforcing Sharia, “the path of Allah.”
Sharia is as defined in the Manual of Islamic Law, drawn from the Koran and the “reliable” traditions, “Hadith”, concerning the life and sayings of Mohammed. Together these all form Islamic Law. The Koran can be consulted online and the Manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, is available as a download.
A second piece by the BBC, “What is Islamic State?” (again, no author shown), is rather more helpful.
Author’s note: since the LibertyGB article appeared the BBC has silently changed the text of this second article. What follows relates to the original text, no longer shown.
Once again, though, it quickly steers the reader away from Islam by dictating, with no explanation, that Islamic State is “a radical Islamist group”. We can note that Islamic State does not call itself “Radical Islamist State”: no, the BBC does that for them.
“The group aims to establish a “caliphate”“. No, it has already declared one. Now for another chestnut: “the group implements a strict interpretation of Sharia”. No: there is not a non-strict or benign interpretation of “Kill”. “Kill” means kill. What the BBC means is a strict application of Sharia, “forcing women to wear veils, non-Muslims to pay a special tax or convert, and imposing punishments that include floggings and executions.” The law is there: it is just that not all Muslim societies apply it to the letter. Yet another old chestnut is rolled out: “IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam”. What, BBC, is the non-extreme “interpretation” of “Kill”? That is right. There is not one. This is just a device to draw attention away from Islam.
The following report by Janice Fiamengo was originally published at FrontPage Mag.
Valerie Price, Executive-Director of Act! For Canada with friends Tarek Fatah (left) and Salim Mansur (right)
Canada’s Anti-Hate Network Attacks ‘Act! For Canada’ in Desperate Hunt for Hate
Inside the Left’s twisted world of innuendo and unfounded allegations.
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is Canada’s ironically named version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an intolerant organization that can’t stop patting itself on the back for opposing intolerance. Though lacking the formidable political heft, war chest, and extensive reach of its more robust American cousin, the CAHN exists to rain calumny down upon groups or individuals who do not share its progressivist viewpoints. Never content merely to disagree or rebut, the network pursues its ends almost exclusively through Hall of Shame-style attacks on those it deems “far right” enemies.
Recently, Peter Smith and Elizabeth Simons of the CAHN published a wordy hit piece on Valerie Price, long-time Executive-Director of Act! For Canada (AFC), an organization founded in 2009 and dedicated to defending Canada’s freedoms, security, and core values. To this end, Price hosts a website, distributes a weekly e-newsletter, encourages activism, and (pre-Covid) organized conferences and special speakers on such subjects as Islamic terrorism, the Islamization of Canadian culture, and threats to freedom of speech.
Smith and Simons’ innuendo-laden “M-103 to the Pandemic: Evolution of Canadian Islamophobic Activists Shows How Hate Movements Adapt” has all the incisiveness of a midnight-concocted term paper by two second-year Sociology students who never learned the principles of argument. It also clearly illuminates the challenges that face the CAHN and similar groups in Canada. What are hate-hunters to do when there is no hate to be found? Having spent hours combing through AFC’s website and affiliated Facebook group — as well as those of a later-formed companion group, Action4Canada, run by Price’s associate Tanya Gaw-Smith — Simons found nothing objectively hateful nor anything dishonest or defamatory. The very worst they could discover was a supportive message for a young ex-Muslim activist, Sandra Solomon, who subsequently tore out pages of the Koran and left them on car windshields around a mosque. AFC’s failure to disavow Solomon, who objects to the treatment of women in Islam, left Smith and Simons aghast.
With nothing worse to expose, the vigilante authors could only present the facts of AFC’s various information campaigns as if they were far more incendiary than they actually are, informing readers breathlessly that Price has, over the years, posted articles on her website about the arrests of terror suspects, the possibility of Iran launching an EMP attack (with “electromagnetic pulse” put in scare quotes, as if the authors couldn’t hold back their incredulous laughter), and about the political results of the Arab Spring. The implication, never made clear in the article, is that pure-hearted multi-culturalists should have no truck with any such discussions.
According to Smith and Simons, AFC has also posted articles expressing dismay at the legalization of marijuana, criticizing the radical trans agenda, and supporting the right to life of unborn children; during the last two election campaigns, Price went so far as to endorse the People’s Party of Canada and the Christian Heritage Party. Perhaps realizing that such actions are nowhere near enough to justify calling AFC a hate site, the authors also rely heavily on innuendo and unfounded allegations too numerous to catalogue here, with special emphasis on Price’s alleged “anti-Muslim” sentiments, for which not one iota of evidence is ever presented. In the process, the article pretends to analyze how “the far-right adopts and packages new grievances to recruit support.”
The popular French commentator Eric Zemmour has stirred up a lot of controversy in France by running for president and doing surprisingly well in the opinion polls. Unlike most talking heads in French politics, Mr. Zemmour is unabashed in his discussion of the Great Replacement, the process — which is now well-advanced — by which the autochthonous French are being supplanted by migrants from North Africa and the Middle East.
In the following street interviews, French culture-enrichers volunteer their opinions on Eric Zemmour and the Great Replacement.
Samuel Paty was a French schoolteacher who was beheaded a little over a year ago for showing some Motoons to his students.
The following report describes the vandalism of a memorial display for Mr. Paty. Although the reporter doesn’t mention ethnicity, I assume culture-enrichers were responsible for the damage.
Manosque: Glass display window paying homage to Samuel Paty destroyed, investigation opened
by Romain Hirt
November 12, 2021
A group of individuals was seen Thursday evening in the process of destroying a glass display window by throwing rocks. An investigation has been opened by the prosecutor’s office in Digne-les-Bains to find the perpetrators.
On Friday the prosecutor’s office in Digne-les-Bains opened an investigation in Manosque (Alpes-de-Haute-Province) after Thursday evening’s damage to a glass display window paying homage to professor Samuel Paty, BFM DICI learned from a police source.
On Thursday at around 9pm some neighbors of the Saint Charles College at Manosque witnessed the damaging of a glass display case, located on the college’s facade, paying homage to the history professor who was decapitated on 16 October 2020 after showing some cartoons of the Prophet during a class at the college of Bois d’Aulne, at Confians-Sainte-Honoine (Yvelines).
According to initial reports, a group of individuals was seen in the process of breaking this glass display window by throwing rocks. Though the photos in the window were neither stolen nor damaged, the window was destroyed.
An Algerian culture-enricher has been convicted in Paris for the notorious murder of an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor. He was sentenced to life, which means at least 22 years in France. Which is better than in Sweden, where a “life” sentence generally turns out to mean eighteen months or so.
Anti-Semitism: The murderer of Mireille Knoll sentenced to life imprisonment
The criminal court of Paris sentenced Yacine Mihoub to life imprisonment for the murder of Mireille Knoll in 2018. The body of this woman, age 85, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, had been discovered stabbed and partially burned in her residence. The aggravating circumstance of the victim’s belonging to the Jewish community was recognized.
Yacine Mihoub was sentenced Wednesday, 10 November, by the criminal court of Paris to life imprisonment, at least 22 years to be served, for the 2018 murder of Mireille Knoll, with the aggravating circumstance that the victim belonged to the Jewish community.
His co-defendant, Alex Carrimbacus, was acquitted of the murder of the octogenarian but sentenced to a punishment of 15 years’ imprisonment, at least two thirds to be served, for robbing the victim. The anti-Semitic character of the crime was also applied for him, as well as the aggravating circumstance of Mrs. Knoll’s vulnerability, 85 years old and very weakened by Parkinson’s disease.
An “anti-Semitic halo”
The court concluded that the events had taken place within a “global anti-Semitic context”, according to the reading by court president Franck Zientara after more than nine hours of deliberation.
According to the court, “The villainous character was fed by a hatred due to the victim’s belonging to the Jewish religion” and by the prejudices of Yacine Mihoub and “beliefs that valuables could be concealed” in the social housing of Mireille Knoll.
“It’s just; it’s what we were expecting. Our family can begin mourning,” the grandson of Mireille Knoll said in reaction the verdict.
The arguments before the court concentrated on the question of the anti-Semitic character of the crime. Snippets of conversation on Jews and stereotypes about their supposed wealth, as well as internet searches, constituted the set of facts to determine the “anti-Semitic halo” in which, according to the attorney general and the civil parties, the crime was carried out.
The two articles below about the BBC were published successively in 2013 by Michael Copeland.
BBC Fog-Making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan
by Michael Copeland
This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 4 April 2013.
Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don’t know what’s causing them [insider killings], and we’re looking at everything.” (FrontPage Mag)
In Afghanistan earlier this year (2013) there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?”, blames a “rogue soldier”. Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no “rogue”.
Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified “many analysts” and tipping a barrow load of red herrings such as this:
“But perhaps worryingly for Nato the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.”
This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations can be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, ‘The House of Islam’, is Dar al Harb, ‘The House of War’ (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” (Koran 98:6), “the vilest of beasts” (8:22, 8:55). “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also: “The disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). NATO, treated as an ‘occupier’, is doubly an enemy.
When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel ‘occupier’ he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 64% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them. Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for “Mastership of the World”, as the Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi proclaimed in 2011.
“The mosques are our barracks,” recited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, “the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers.” It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: “Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran.”
Don’t the BBC listen? Can’t they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers’ lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the “many analysts”? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.
The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as “true from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:
- Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
- Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
- Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
- Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
- And that Allah may … exterminate the infidel. 3:141
Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: “You killed them not, but Allah killed them.” (8:17) There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with ‘dirt’), who are “unclean” (9:28), “the most despicable” (98:6):
- Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
- Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29
Osama bin Laden wrote: “Battle, animosity and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”
The doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed’s companion Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Mohammed himself said, “War is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath” (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427). Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no “rogue”: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.
Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:
“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Koran 9:111).
This is the justification for the ‘martyrdom’ (suicide) bombing. The ordinary Muslim can never be sure whether his good deeds will sufficiently outweigh his bad deeds so that he will not be consigned to Hell in the afterlife. In contrast, those who “slay and are slain” are guaranteed immediate entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. In Islam’s teachings the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven. The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.
These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet. These are what the BBC’s anonymous author refers to as “the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies.”
Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.
by Michael Copeland
This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 28 October, 2013
A “youth” went on a stabbing rampage with a knife on Monday in the French city of Cannes. He attacked a police car and slashed at a policewoman, who was fortunately unharmed, thanks to her bulletproof vest. Two of her colleagues then got out of the vehicle and shot the knifeman, wounding him.
The attacker’s motive is unknown, although “Allahu Akhbar” (Arabic for “defund the police”) features prominently in this news report.
The following brief video shows a protest march in Italy against the “green pass”, which is what the vax passport is called in several European countries.
The reaction to the protesters’ symbolic gear of repression is an example of the familiar rule: no one is allowed to make Holocaust analogies except leftists.