Thursday, May 25, 2017

Austrian Populist Leader: Put Islamists on Prison Islands

The leader of the populist anti-mass migration Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) Heinz-Christian Strache has proposed that known Islamists should be arrested and sent to prisons on “lonely islands”.

Mr. Strache made the comments in reaction to the terrorist attack in Manchester which saw the deaths of 22 people and over 60 injured. The FPÖ leader said Islamists were “tomorrow’s murderers” and the European Union needed to introduce “hard” measures against returning Islamic State fighters, Austrian newspaper Die Presse reports.
According to Strache, almost all of the Islamic State fighters who return to Europe from Syria and Iraq pose a potential security risk. He said many of these fighters, including the Manchester terrorist, are well known to authorities.
“If they are banished to a lonely and well-guarded island, the problem is solved for the most part, instead of waiting until they strike and massacre people,” he said.
He also urged EU member states to deport foreign radicals as soon as possible. “Against such radical people, only hard measures help,” he noted.
Strache has long been an ardent critic of both radical Islamic terrorism, mass migration, and Islamisation in Austria. Taking over the leadership of the FPÖ in 2005, he has managed to transform the party from a fringe group to a major force in Austrian politics.
Earlier this year Strache expressed a desire to completely ban Islamism in Austria. He called the ideology “antagonistic to women, antiliberal and corresponds to a fascist worldview” and added that any migrants from the Islamic world “may go back to their Islamic country, we have forced no one to come here”.
On the subject of mass migration, Strache is clear that he thinks German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the “most dangerous woman in Europe” because of her pro-migrant policies which led to over a million migrants entering Germany in 2015.
After the surprise resignation of former Austrian vice-chancellor Reinhard Mitterlehner, the coalition government of the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Socialists has largely collapsed and early elections announced for October 15th.
Whilst the ÖVP has seen a boost in polls due to the new leadership of popular Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, the FPÖ have remained in the contention.
Some have predicted a possible coalition government between the conservatives and the FPÖ as Mr. Kurz has been the main proponent for the recent banning of the Islamic full face veil and has agreed with other proposals like housing incoming asylum seekers on islands until they can be properly processed.

VIDEO: Muslim aggression in Germany, whips cameraman, I’ll f**k you mother … everything. Believe me”

PFORZHEIM, BAVARIA, GERMANY, April 2017. The video depicts the aggression, on daily basis, of Muslim Arabs in the big cities of Germany. This video was taken in Pforzheim, a Bavarian city (South Germany). The so-called “asylum seekers” and “refugees” are flooding in mobs through the cities and attack women, girls and passersby. When the situation gets hot, they have no problem to use their knives and other weapons at hand.In this short clip, you see a group of Muslim men harassing a girl and then threatening a man who tries to protect her. It takes only moments for the leader of the Muslim gang to spot the camera  and whip the cameraman (second .43)

Manchester Bomber’s Sister: ‘The Attack Was Revenge for American Strikes on Syria’

Salman Abedi carried out his attack at a concert in Manchester, England, as revenge for the bombing of Syria by the U.S., his sister has said.

Jomana Abedi said her brother was “kind” and “loving”, but had been driven to his actions by American military strikes against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
“I think he saw children – Muslim children – dying everywhere, and wanted revenge,” she told the Wall Street Journal.
“He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge. Whether he got that is between him and God.”
The comments have provoked outrage in Manchester, where locals accused Jomana of attempting to justify the attack in which 22 mostly young people, including an eight-year-old girl, lost their lives.
“There is no justification for the taking of a child’s lives,” 52-year-old Mancunian Mark Session told the Mirror.
“Any kid losing their life is heart-breaking, but to my knowledge, no children in the allied air strikes has been targeted purposely unlike in Manchester.”
“It is sick to justify the arena bombing in such a way. It is abhorrent in fact.
“There is no place for her comments.”
Robbie Travers, an analyst with think-tank The Gatestone Institute, agreed, dismissing suggestions that Jomana’s comments could be interpreted as calling for an end to a cycle of violence.
Not only were her words meant to excuse her brother, he told Breitbart London, but they could be seen “as suggesting that the Middle East was attacked by terrorism, and that U.S. and IS are moral equivalents.
“[She] seems to justify the struggle and suggest that both sides are equally wrong, which is absurd.”
Travers also dismissed the notion that Jomana could be held up as an example of ‘moderate’ Islam for apparently condemning her brother, where in speaking to the Wall Street Journal she expressed shock at her brother’s actions.
“She is billing herself as a “moderate Muslim,” he said. “Look at the way she blames the victims for the attack. Look at the way she asserts her brother isn’t in control of his actions and was forced to slaughter children.
“Her words illustrate the problem we face: she seems to believe that any form of intervention justifies murder of innocents. She seems to believe that British children are responsible for American actions, as if they have a say in foreign policy.
“If moderate Muslims have conflicting loyalties between IS and the US, a functioning liberal democracy, we should be extremely concerned.”
He added: “She also went on to call her brother ‘kind’, ‘loving’, ‘peaceful’, and ‘tolerant’. This is a form of chauvinism, it’s designed to dirty the names of the victims, whilst protecting the reputation of Islam. It is repellent and wicked. And it is not moderate.”

Manchester Bomber Repeatedly Reported to Authorities over Five Year Period

The police and security services missed at least five opportunities over five years to stop Salman Abedi from carrying out his deadly terror attack, it has emerged.

Following the deadly attack at the Manchester Arena by Abedi on Tuesday night, which claimed 22 lives, questions are being raised as to why the British authorities did little to follow up on repeated reports from friends and community members that Abedi was radicalised and had expressed support for suicide bombing.
The reports date back five years, when two youth workers are said to have phoned an anti-terrorism hotline to report concerns over Adebi’s “extreme views” whilst he was completing his last year at school, the BBC has reported.
Two of Abedi’s friends were also so concerned about his behaviour that they separately phoned the hotline, five years ago, and again in 2016.
“They had been worried that ‘he was supporting terrorism’ and had expressed the view that ‘being a suicide bomber was ok’,” a source told the BBC.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, told The Telegraph that community members also reported Abedi to the authorities two years ago “because he thought he was involved in extremism and terrorism”.
“People in the community expressed concerns about the way this man was behaving and reported it in the right way using the right channels,” Shafiq said.
“They did not hear anything since.”
Akram Ramadan, 49, a member of the south Manchester Libyan community where Abedi lived, said that Abedi had been banned from Didsbury Mosque after he confronted an imam who had delivered a sermon opposing extremism.
Didsbury Mosque has confirmed that, following the incident, it contacted the Home Office’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme to flag Abedi as a possible extremist.
Mr. Ramadan said he believed that that report led to Abedi being placed on a watch list, yet he was allowed to travel to Libya and Syria repeatedly, before returning to Manchester to carry out his deadly plot.
Last night Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted that Abedi had been known to the British security services, whilst U.S. intelligence has confirmed he was also known to them.
France’s interior minister has said Abedi had “proven” links with Islamic State, and that both French and British intelligence had information that he had been to Syria.
But Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, told Radio 4’s Today the opportunities were missed because the threat is so widespread.
“This comes down to numbers,” Gardner said. “If they told us how many people had these extreme views just across the UK we wouldn’t sleep at night. It’s in the thousands.
“They haven’t got the ‘watchers’ – they haven’t got the capability to follow all of those people, so they have to go where they think the danger is the most imminent and the most serious.”
A security source told Sky News: “MI5 are working on 500 active investigations involving some 3,000 subjects of interest at any one time. Abedi was one of a larger pool of former subjects of interest whose risk remained subject to review by MI5 and its partners.”
“Where former subjects of interest show known risks of re-engaging in terrorism, MI5 can consider reopening the investigation. This process relies on inevitable difficult judgements based on partial information,” the statement added.
Eight arrests have now been made in connection to the plot, but police have admitted that with each arrest and new location discovered, the web of involvement widens. Just over 36 hours in, the investigation is already being described as “vast”.

Labour Manchester Mayor Says Suicide Bomber ‘Not a Muslim’

The Labour mayor of Greater Manchester has claimed the suicide bomber who killed 22 was not a Muslim, insisting the “worst thing that can happen” is people blaming Muslims.

Andy Burnham, a former Labour frontbencher who was elected mayor this month, insisted the attack, claimed by Islamic State, had nothing to do with Islam.
“The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim,” he said, speaking to LBC Radio.
“He does not represent the Muslim community. We’ve got to keep that distinction in mind all the time. This was an unspeakable act. The worst thing that can happen is that people use this to blame an entire community, the Muslim community.
“In my view, the man who committed this atrocity no more represents the Muslim community than the individual who murdered my friend Jo Cox represents the white, Christian community.”
Similarly, following the Westminster knife and car attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said the “Islamist” attack on Parliament was not “Islamic”.
Haras Rafiq, the CEO of the anti-extremism Quilliam Foundation, which has advised the Government, accused Mr. Burnham of “basically doing what ISIS is doing”.
He said by declaring the terrorist a non-Muslim, he had “excommunicate[ed] Salman Abedi”, which is known as takfiri in Islam and is widely practised by extremists.
Mr. Rafiq said the Manchester attack has “something to do with some interpretation of Islam”, speaking on Sky News, adding:
“What we must not do anymore… is turn around and say ‘this person was not a Muslim’ – because he was, he was practising a form of Islamist, Salafi, jihadist Islam and that’s something we need to tackle head on.”
He also said “there is no such thing as a lone wolf”, predicting the terrorist was part of a “network”. He claimed “every single jihadist terrorist has been part of the globally inspired Islamist ideology”.

Bomber's childhood friend became a gang rapist: Pal is in jail for luring a girl, 16, into hotel room and raping her with a mob of attackers

 Manchester concert bomber Salman Abedi (third from left) used to hang around with Bilal Ahmed (second from left), who was convicted of rape

Sitting on a wall, their legs dangling off the ground, they could be any pair of fashionably-dressed teenagers. But one would grow up to be a suicide bomber and the other a gang rapist. Manchester concert bomber Salman Abedi used to hang around with Bilal Ahmed, who is now serving a nine-year prison sentence for luring a schoolgirl into a hotel room and raping her along with a mob of attackers.Last year the Daily Mail told the harrowing story of the gang’s victim, a private schoolgirl who said she kept quiet during the terrifying attack because she feared the consequences of protesting. ‘I just stayed quiet because I thought they would kill me if I screamed,’ she said. ‘Any one of them could have had a knife. Nobody else knew I was there. I kept thinking they could kill me and nobody would know.’ The girl, a gifted musician who had little experience with boys, was introduced to the group from South Manchester’s Somali community – among them Ahmed plus Muhyadeen Osman and Mowled Yussuf - by a mutual friend in 2013.Along with other youths who have not been identified they lured the then 16-year-old back to a run-down hotel in Rusholme, site of Manchester’s famous Curry Mile, where they had been spent the previous night for Eid celebrations. Finding an unlocked room, the mob forced her inside and each subjected her to a degrading attack – in the words of the judge picking on her as ‘easy prey’. Last year the trio, then all aged 20, were jailed for a total of 31 years after all being convicted of rape. Cruelly the victim’s parents faced a gauntlet of intimidation and abuse from the families and friends of the convicted men during the two-week trial.Bilal Ahmed sarcastically blew a kiss at the couple shortly before sentence was delivered. The girl’s mother said: ‘By supporting them in this way, they are condoning what happened. No wonder so many people are too scared to go to court in rape cases if this is what you have to go through.’ A source told the Mail that Ahmed and Salman Abedi used to hang around together on the South Manchester estates where they live. Yesterday a neighbour of Ahmed’s family in Whalley Range – close to the home of the attacker’s elder brother Ismail – said: ‘When he went to prison it was such a shock. The rape - that was so, so shocking. The whole community was shocked.’

Trump’s Travel Ban for Libyan Immigrants Vindicated After Manchester Suicide Bombing


As the UK hunts down members and friends of a Libyan immigrant family after one of its British-born sons committed the worst terrorist atrocity on U.K. soil in 12 years, across the Atlantic the atrocity also highlights the dangers that made President Trump include Libya on the list of countries included in his much-maligned travel ban.

Salman Abedi, who was born in Britain in 1994 after his family fled from Libya to escape the regime of Dictator Muammar Gaddafi, detonated a bomb Monday at Manchester Arena at the end of an Ariana Grande concert.  Abedi killed 22 people and injured dozens, many of whom were teenage girls and children.
While it was initially thought that Abedi may have been a lone wolf, by Wednesday Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins told reporters authorities are now investigating a “network” of terrorists and have arrested six people in the UK – including Abedi’s older brother.
While some outlets were hyping up Abedi’s supposed Britishness, (“He was a fan of Manchester United, like many in his soccer-obsessed hometown” began a New York Times profile on the Islamic jihadist), others have honed in on Abedi’s Libyan roots as a possible key to both his motivation and possible collaborators.
Neighbours told reporters of Libyan flags being flown outside the home, as well as Abedi’s penchant for praying in the street in Arabic. Abedi travelled back to Libya just weeks before the attack, purportedly to visit his parents. Abedi’s father, Ramadan, was arrested by local authorities in Libya, as was one of Abedi’s brothers – who Libyan authorities say travelled to Libya from Britain and who was a member of Islamic State, The New York Times reported.
In the U.K., questions have been raised about terror-related problems with Libyans in South Manchester, where Abedi was from. As Breitbart News reported Tuesday, areas such as Fallowfield, Longsight, Rusholme, and Levenshulme, have high concentrations of Muslims – with 2011 census data registering a 53.8 per cent Muslim population in Longsight, near where Abedi lived in Fallowfield.
Abdalraouf Abdallah, a Libyan refugee, was convicted last year of terror offences after helping a convert to Islam to travel to Syria to join Islamic State. A family friend told The Guardian that Abdallah and Abedi knew one another. The Daily Telegraph, in an article called “The Manchester Libyan connection — a recruiting ground for jihadists” puts South Manchester’s terror problem in stark terms:
In total at least 16 jihadists, who have either been convicted of offences, have travelled to Syria or have died while fighting with [Islamic State], hail from a three mile radius around the south Manchester district which was home to Abedi.
These problems are the kind Trump was seeking to prevent in the U.S. by restricting immigration from terror hotspots – an issue which became a central part of his campaign. In January, Trump signed an executive order and a revised order after a court challenge in March, restricting immigration from a number of terror-prone countries – including Syria, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, and Libya.
However, Trump’s order is still challenged in court, and new data shows worrying signs of illegal immigration amongst immigrants from the North African country currently being torn apart by violence. A Department of Homeland Security report on visa overstays released this week found that in FY 2016, 43 percent of Libyan students in the U.S. on student visas overstayed their visas — suggesting monitoring of those in the U.S. is in need of improvement.
In the U.K. meanwhile, questions are being raised about not only the connection to Libya, but also how Abedi and his brothers – despite being monitored by security officials – were able to travel back and forth from the area without any alarm bells ringing.
Additionally, while many politicians and commentators in the U.K. initially attacked Trump for his travel ban, some believe that in the wake of the attack, the British public will be questioning its own policies when it comes to Muslim immigration.
“The public will, I think rightly, be wondering: ‘OK we took this couple in as asylum seekers fleeing Gaddafi’s Libya, and how did we get repaid? By their son going to Manchester Arena last Monday evening,” Douglas Murray, author of The Strange Death of Europe, said on a podcast for The Spectator.
“And this now is going to the root of a very big, underlying, bubbling problem across our whole continent, which is this fear: ‘What if this is the future? What if even our acts of goodness get repaid in this way?’” he said.

Manchester Massacre and the Immigration Vexation

By Ilana Mercer

"ISIS" did not attack in Manchester; a second-generation Muslim, son of immigrants, did.
The Islamic State may have inspired 22-year-old Salman Abedi, but ISIS in the Middle East did not murder 22 youngsters and injure dozens at a pop-tart performance. 
ISIS, no doubt, is pleased Salman Abedi has killed in Manchester. The outfit is eager to continue providing inspiration, even training, to his kind. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send Abedi and his ilk to kill Britons.
The Abedis, who fly the Libyan flag outside the family home, were invited into England. Policy makers and power brokers in the West have invited Muslim immigrants to live among us in the belief that, underneath the burqa, the abaya and full-body swaddle they were just like us.
Almost all these Muslim killers are legitimate immigrants. Before the Manchester murderer came Knifeman Khalid Masood, on Westminster Bridge (March, 2017). There were the immigrants who carved up Drummer Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, and the Muslim who gutted an American woman in central London, both in 2013. It’s hard to keep up.
This is how citizenship in the West has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally and imperiously. The same overlords squint at the great unwashed of England or Middle America from behind their parapets in Whitehall and Washington. The same sorts despise us all for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, maybe even a tad monocultural.
While the Muslims who strike at our families live among us, they’re not of us
Look, language mediates behavior. To properly respond to the vipers that elect to kill Americans, Europeans and Englishmen, we need to closely describe them.
To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.
Certainly the term of choice must reflect not ideology, right or left, but reality. For if we don't describe exactly who’s killing us; we'll be unable to eject them from our midst.
The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining what is murder-by-Muslim immigrant, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are at once achievable and the legitimate purview of limited government.
You and I will be forced to pay for elaborate schemes that relate not at all to the problem at hand. Think about George Bush's dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here. “W” failed to consider that thanks to longstanding liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. Besides, bombing Syria or Iraq doesn’t stop a Manchester. To the contrary; it triggers it
So don't be fooled.
ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam unreformed is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we've conferred the right to live among us are.
Berlin endured a Christmas-market massacre, in 2016. There was slaughter in Nice, Paris, even in an ancient village in Normandy, where an elderly priest was decapitated on the altar by two young jackals. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Chattanooga Tennessee (where four Marines were executed, in 2015): The carnage, ongoing, is too great to catalog. It emanates not from ISIS in the Levant or in the abstract, but from flesh-and-blood Muslims living right here, in America, England and on the Continent.   
Also sorely missed in the discussion is that in the US, Great Britain and Western Europe, state and civil society acculturate immigrants into a militant identity politics. Essentially, newcomers are taught to hate their hosts. Nations whose institutions promote cultural relativism and hate of the dominant culture have no business importing the sort of immigrant who’ll be quick to act on an ideology of hate—be it the self-hate of the host, or the hate in Jihad.
Of course, these dormant murderers—Muslim Americans, Canadians, Europeans or Englishmen—did not act alone.
Behind almost every murder are State central planners:  Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, activists, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it—and a command-and-control judiciary that has decided the American Bill of Rights belongs to the world, and was written to enrich immigration lawyers and their clientele the world-over.
If the truth is that the threat we face is not in the Middle East, but here at home, and that it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat—the solution presents itself.

How will Britain react to its own 9/11?

By James G. Wiles

Watching the weenies at the U.K.'s Guardian react to the Manchester mass-casualty attack by trotting out the left's usual meme that "we must not overreact" to the latest atrocity, we may have arrived at a great clarifying moment.  Apparently, there is nothing  the Islamic terrorists could do that will provoke the European left into defending the West.  So this will be a very short note.
First, the left, with its reaction to Manchester, has lost all credibility.  Leftists are no longer relevant – and should be treated accordingly.
Second, Great Britain – in the midst of a "snap election" campaign – has been targeted by the same folks who've been launching mass-casualty attacks on the Continent.  From the reporting, it appears that this was not a "lone wolf" like the guy who attacked Parliament.  This was ISIS Central.  An appropriate response is required.
Third, thank God that Barack Obama is not president.
So what should the Brits and the U.S. do?  They should do what the Archangel Barack would not do after the Paris and Brussels attacks.  Invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.  This was done after 9/11.
An attack on one is an attack on all.
Last, Prime Minister May, with President Trump's support, should do what George W. Bush did not do after 9/11 and call for 100,000 British men to leap to the colors and join the U.K.'s military.  France's new president should do the same with his own men and his own army.
Enough is enough.  As Mark Steyn wrote on Tuesday:
All of us have gotten things wrong since 9/11. But few of us have gotten things as disastrously wrong as May and Merkel and Hollande and an entire generation of European political leaders who insist that remorseless incremental Islamization is both unstoppable and manageable. It is neither – and, for the sake of the dead of last night's carnage and for those of the next one, it is necessary to face that honestly. Theresa May's statement in Downing Street is said by my old friends at The Spectator to be "defiant", but what she is defying is not terrorism but reality. So too for all the exhausted accessories of defiance chic: candles, teddy bears, hashtags, the pitiful passive rote gestures that acknowledge atrocity without addressing it – like the Eloi in H G Wells' Time Machine, too evolved to resist the Morlocks.
As I asked around Europe all last year: What's the happy ending here? In a decade it will be worse, and in two decades worse still, and then in three decades people will barely recall how it used to be, when all that warmth and vibrancy of urban life that Owen Jones hymns in today's Guardian is but a memory, and the music has died away, and Manchester is as dull and listless as today's Alexandria. If Mrs May or Frau Merkel has a happier ending, I'd be interested to hear it. If not, it is necessary not to carry on, but to change, and soon – before it's too late.

The Left’s Road Leads to Manchester: Which is the bigger threat? Jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?

On Monday night, a mass murderer killed 22 people and injured 59 at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England.
The perpetrator was a man named Salman Ramadan Abedi, a man whom friends described as a “devout” Muslim who had memorized the entire Qur’an. He was known to British authorities as a terror threat and had been in touch with a recruiter for the Islamic State (ISIS).
I hadn’t heard of Salman Abedi before he murdered all those little girls and their friends and family members at the Ariana Grande concert, but when I recently spoke at Truman State University in Missouri, the University at Buffalo, and Gettysburg College, and then at an event in Iceland, I discussed the belief system that incites people such as Salman Abedi to violence. I explored the ways in which jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, and the texts of the Qur’an and Islamic law that call upon Muslims to wage war against those who do not believe in Islam.
For this, the three universities and the Icelandic press treated my presence in the country as if Josef Goebbels had stopped by for a visit. A petition demanding that my Truman State appearance be canceled called me “rabble rouser, inflammatory speaker, and outright Islamaphobe [sic],” and claimed that I have “an agenda of hate and violence.” It further claimed that “allowing Spencer on this campus is detrimental to the safety and well-being of this university’s community members.” Others called for me to be physically attacked.
A similar petition at the University at Buffalo charged: “Spencer’s scheduled talk poses the very real risk of inciting acts of violence on campus between student communities.” A Gettysburg College student claimed, without providing any evidence, that my work has been “used as a basis for hate crimes against Muslims in the United States.”
The Icelandic press wrote in the same vein. The Reykjavik Grapevine warned: “Known Islamophobe To Hold Conference At Grand Hotel, Protest Likely.” After I left, the Iceland Monitor observed that “US lecturer and Islamophobe Robert Spencer…gave a lecture on what he calls the ‘Jihad Threat’ in Reykjavik recently.”
While I was there, several interviewers accused me of casting unjust suspicion upon the small Muslim community in Iceland, and worried that Muslims in Iceland might be attacked by vigilantes in the wake of my lecture. Virtually every news story about my Icelandic visit, like the petitions and news stories about my visits to those three universities, contained the information that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik had mentioned me numerous times in his manifesto. None of them noted the differences between his beliefs and mine; or the fact that he started planning violence in the 1990s, before I had published anything about the jihad threat; or the fact that he criticized me in that same manifesto for not inciting violence; or the fact that he also quoted many people across the ideological spectrum, including Barack Obama, Tony Blair, and Condoleezza Rice, who are never questioned about their possible role in inciting him to kill.
The message was consistent and clear: Spencer is a dangerous person whose work threatens the safety of innocent people. He speaks about a threat where there is none.
Now it has been several weeks since I spoke at those three academic institutions and in Reykjavik, where a Leftist who was no doubt incited to act against me by the venomous coverage I received in the Icelandic media poisoned me. In that span, have any Muslims at Truman State, the University at Buffalo, Gettysburg College or anywhere in Iceland been brutalized by those who heard me speak? No. Has any Muslim anywhere been murdered by an “Islamophobe”?
No. But twenty-two people are dead in Britain at the hands of a man who is a manifestation of, as the Iceland Monitor put it, what I call the jihad threat. That threat is real, and growing worldwide, as the evidence of 30,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 shows.
Anders Breivik as a madman, a psychopath with no coherent world view. Those who disagree should try to account for the fact that this murderous “Islamophobe” counseled collaboration with the jihad terror groups Hamas and al-Qaeda. He did not represent the violent outcome of “Islamophobic” rhetoric. That there have been no other “Islamophobic” killers either before or after him is further evidence of this.
What his continuing notoriety actually represents is the avidity of the Left and the establishment media to stigmatize and demonize, and thereby marginalize and silence those who are calling attention to what is an actual threat: that of Islamic jihad.
Within the past year, there have been murderous jihad attacks in Orlando, Florida; Magnanville, France; Würzburg, Germany; Ansbach, Germany; Rouen, France; Ohio State University; Berlin; and now Manchester. I’ve listed only the attacks in Europe and the U.S.; there were many others elsewhere in that span as well. In the ones I’ve listed, 90 people were killed, all by Muslims who took the exhortations to kill that are contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah to heart.
There remain no casualties by anyone who took my exhortations to heart, anywhere at any time; I don’t call for or condone violence. Yet I am certain that those institutions of higher learning and the Icelandic media were far more hostile to me than they would have been if, say, a jihad terrorist freed from Guantanamo had come to speak.
I am banned from entering Britain for the crime of noting correctly that Islam has doctrines of violence; meanwhile, Britain has admitted numerous preachers of jihad violence against unbelievers.
Clearly Britain, like Truman State University, the University at Buffalo, Gettysburg College, and the Icelandic media, believes that the “jihad threat” is imaginary and the “Islamophobia” threat is real.
The body count says otherwise.
And if the students who protested my appearances and the Icelandic government and media don’t awaken to that fact quickly, they will discover it by direct experience, on their own soil. The Left’s strategy regarding “Islamophobia” leads straight to Manchester.
Once every foe of jihad terror is demonized and silenced, who will be left to speak out in resistance? No one – and then the jihad will advanced unopposed and unimpeded, while those who might have spoken out remain silent for fear of charges of “Islamophobia.”

Censoring You to 'Protect' You

  • The editor of The Vanguard at Portland State University decided that it was more important to cover up a story than to break it, more important to evade truths than to expose them, and more important to treat students -- and the wider world -- as children rather than thinking sentient adults able to make up their own minds.
  • That students such as Andy Ngo exist is reason for considerable optimism. So long as there are even a few people left who are willing to ask the questions that need asking and willing to tell people about the answers they hear -- however uncomfortable they may seem right now -- all cannot possibly be lost.
  • Indeed, it is imaginable, that with examples such as this, students in America could be reminded not only that truth will always triumph over lies, but that the current trend of ignorance and censorship might one day soon begin to be turned around.
In the culture-wars currently rocking US campuses, the enemies of free speech have plenty of tools on their side. Many of these would appear to be advantages. For instance the employment of violence, thuggery and intimidation against those who disagree are generally effective ways to prevent people hearing things you do not want them to hear. As are the subtler but more regularly employed tactics for shutting people down, such a "no-platforming" people or getting them disinvited after they have been invited, should the speaker's views not accord 100% with those of their would-be censors. As also noted in this space before, many of the people who campaign to limit what American students can learn also have the short-term advantage of being willing to lie without compunction and cover over facts whenever they emerge.
The important point here, however, is that word "short-term". In the long run, those who wish to cover over a contrary opinion, or even inconvenient facts, are unlikely to succeed. Adults tend to be capable of more discernment and initiative than the aspirant-nannies believe them to be, and the effects will always tend to show. Take, for example, events in Portland, Oregon, last month.
In April, a gathering took place at the Portland State University. The occasion was billed as an interfaith panel and was given the title, "Challenging Misperceptions." As this is an era when perceptions, as well as misperceptions, of religion are perhaps unusually common, there might be some sense in holding such a discussion, even in the knowledge that it is likely to be hampered -- as interfaith get-togethers usually are -- by the necessity of dwelling on things that do not matter and focussing attention away from all things that do. Thus, by the end of an average interfaith event, it can generally be agreed upon that there are certain dietary laws that certain religions have in common, some agreement on the existence of historical figures and an insistence that religion is the answer to most problems of our world. Fortunately, at Portland, there were some people in the audience who appear to have been happy to avoid this sort of boilerplate.
A young woman raised her hand and asked the Muslim student on the panel about a specific verse in the Koran which would appear to approve killing non-Muslims (Possible verses might have included Qur'an: 8:12; 22:19-22; 2:191-193; 9.5; 9:29). The Muslim student replied:
"I can confidently tell you, when the Koran says an innocent life, it means an innocent life, regardless of the faith, the race, like, whatever you can think about as a characteristic."
This had the potential to develop into an interesting, or at the very least, an interestingly evasive answer. And so a young student there, named Andy Ngo, who also worked for the university's student newspaper, The Vanguard, got out his phone and began recording. The Muslim student on the panel went on to say:
"And some, this, that you're referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country's law, the country is based on Koranic law – that means there is no other law than the Koran. In that case, you're given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave]."
All of this is an admirably more complete answer than tends to be given at such affairs. All of this is also theologically strong. Speaking about the attitudes of the Islamic faith towards apostasy a few years ago, no less an authority than Yusuf al-Qaradawi said that if Muslims had got rid of the punishments for apostasy, "Islam would not exist today". It is a striking admission, and one which would appear to suggest an awareness that the religion's innate appeal is not as great as is often alleged.
The young reporter who captured this segment of video proceeded to share it on his Twitter account. This is the sort of thing journalists often do if they are at a public event and someone says something of interest. The alternatives (that journalists hope never to attend anything interesting, or attend events that are interesting but choose to keep their discoveries private) are not models for success in the profession.
In the days immediately following the event, a couple of websites picked up the story. Shortly afterwards, Andy Ngo was called in for a meeting at his student newspaper and told by the editor-in-chief that his behaviour was "predatory" and "reckless" and that he had put the life of the Muslim student and that student's family at risk. So far as anyone knows, nothing has happened to either the Muslim student or his family. Despite much flame-fanning by "Defenders of Minorities", America does not seem to be in the middle of a lynching season for religious minorities, even though these moralists often appear to wish it otherwise. Nevertheless, "health and safety" and "minimising harm" are, as Mark Steyn has observed, the new "shut up". Where once someone would invite you just to "shut up", today they can appeal to the possibility that a non-existent lynch-mob might show up to murder anyone whose cause the censor of the day happens to be trying to protect.
At any rate, while the Muslim student and his family are, of course, fine, the young journalist who reported his words was fired. The editor of The Vanguard at Portland State University decided that it was more important to cover up a story than to break it, more important to evade truths than to expose them, and more important to treat Portland students -- and the wider world -- as children rather than thinking adults able to make up their own minds.
The account of The Vanguard is a typical display of student cowardice and American academic dishonour. The report, nevertheless, should also stand as a demonstration of American hope. That students such as Andy Ngo exist is reason for considerable optimism. So long as there are even a few people left who are willing to ask the questions that need asking and willing to tell people about the answers they hear -- however uncomfortable they may seem right now -- all cannot possibly be lost. Indeed, it is imaginable, that with examples such as his, students in America could be reminded not only that truth will always triumph over lies, but that the current trend of ignorance and censorship might one day soon begin to be turned around.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Morrissey - Who Put the M in Manchester?

Manchester Terror: Shrapnel, Battery, and Detonator Found at the Scene


The American New York Times has released images of bomb components reportedly from the scene of Monday’s terror attack at the Manchester Arena. The remnants suggest a powerful, sophisticated device that may have had the ability to be detonated remotely by an accomplice.

The British images were likely obtained by The New York Times from American officials presumably accessed through the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence sharing alliance (which is comprised of the U.S., United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada).
Images show the remnants of a Karrimor brand backpack, a possible detonator, nuts and screws as shrapnel, and a 12-volt battery as the device’s possible power source.
Parts of a Karrimore brand backpack
The New York Times reports that suicide bomber Salman Abedi carried out the attack using a “powerful explosive in a lightweight metal container concealed either within a black vest or a blue Karrimor backpack, and to have held a small detonator in his left hand”.

Analysis available to the newspaper does not indicate the size or type of explosive, but suggests the improvised device was made “with forethought and care”.
Yuasa 12-volt, 2.1 amp lead acid battery
The detail and thoroughness of the design of the device were suggested by analysis of the following evidence:
  • The device is believed to have had a powerful, high-velocity charge, suggested by shrapnel having penetrated metal doors and leaving deep cuts in brick walls;
  • Most of the fatalities occurred “in a near complete circle” around the position of the bomber at detonation, pointing to the shrapnel in the bomb having been “carefully and evenly packed”;
  • A Yuasa 12-volt, 2.1 amp lead acid battery was found at the scene, and the newspaper noted that such a type of battery “is more powerful than batteries often seen in backpack bombs or suicide vests”.
Yuasa 12-volt, 2.1 amp lead acid battery
Sky News’s Foreign Affairs Editor Sam Kiley suggests that the complexity of the trigger device, which appears to have a circuit board, might indicate that there was a second switch – a failsafe – that could be triggered remotely by an accomplice should Abedi had lost his nerve or changed his mind.
Greater Manchester Police confirmed Wednesday that they were investigating a “network“, with Home Secretary Amber Rudd earlier stating that Abedi was likely not working on his own.
possible detonator
This release is the latest leak by U.S. intelligence services to the American media following the Manchester terror attack. On Tuesday, Abadi’s name was reported by the American television network CBS. This forced Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins to confirm Abadi’s identity only hours after Prime Minster Theresa May said police were not ready to release details of the suspect.
When speaking to the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme, Home Secretary Rudd said that such information sharing was working against the wishes of the British police who wanted to “control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity”.
The home secretary stated that such leaks “shouldn’t happen again”.
The release of the images comes after a fifth person was arrested in relation to the attack, and news that Abedi’s father and another brother were arrested in Tripoli, Libya.
London has also seen an increased presence in armed police, a deployment of armed military personnel, the cancellation of the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, and the closure of the Houses of Parliament to visitors.

Germany considers fines of up to $56,000,000 for “hate speech”

One would think that the Muslim migrant chaos and crime were enough for Germany, but still the leftist-jihadist alliance is tightening its stranglehold on the country, a country with debt in the tens of billions due to this migrant chaos.
The problems that many critics point out are the vague definitions of the term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the proposed law may have on freedom of speech
Leftists and Islamic supremacists have been at the center of the push for “hate speech” laws; they have been relentlessly attacking the freedom of speech, with the help of the aggressive socialist leftist lobbies. Criticizing Islam is defined by Leftists and Islamic supremacists as “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.”
The Social Democrats’ coalition partners, including Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, argue that the law will result in censorship of legitimate speech.
And indeed, Germany began a crackdown on the freedom of speech nearly two years ago, so as not to offend Muslim migrants.
Other nations in Europe seem to be headed in the same direction as Germany, unless these authoritarian politicians are booted out at election time. This doesn’t look like an encouraging prospect after France’s elections.
Germany Considers Million Dollar Hate Speech Fines, by Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, May 19, 2017:
The German parliament is debating a proposal to force social media platforms to either delete hate speech quickly or risk hefty fines.
The problems that many critics point out are the vague definitions of the term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the proposed law may have on freedom of speech. Justice Minister Heiko Maas disagrees, arguing it will only help protect freedom of speech in Germany.
“The point of the proposed legislation is that statements that violate the law must be deleted,” Maas, a Social Democrat, said Friday, according to Deutsche Welle. “These are not examples of freedom of speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished.”
Flagrant violations need to be removed within 24 hours while more complex cases have to be removed within one week, according to the proposal. Failure to remove posts may result in fines of up to 50 million euros ($56 million dollars).
“Practice shows that not too much, but too little, gets deleted,” Maas said. “We’re at a crossroads. Should the digital revolution be allowed to continue to call our state, based on law and order, into question?”
The Social Democrats’ coalition partners, including Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, argue that the law will result in censorship of legitimate speech.
“I cannot understand how Facebook, for example, is qualified to check whether content is illegal,”….

2 Other Members of Manchester Refugee Terror Family Arrested

Those lone wolves certainly seem to run in packs. Don't they.
After the Manchester Arena Islamic terror attack by Salman Abedi, a second generation Libyan refugee who had been to Libya and Syria before the attack, Libyan authorities (such as they are) have arrested his father and brother.
They are saying that the brother knew about the attack and had a plot going.
Libyan security forces said the brother "was aware of all the details" of attack plans.
Abedi's father Ramadan has reportedly been detained by Libyan counter terrorism police while recording television interviews, according to ITV News.
Abedi's younger brother Hashim has also reportedly been arrested in Tripoli, Libya, on suspicion of having links to the Islamic State group that claimed responsibility for the attack.

So we've got the Islamic family that bombs together, stays together. Considering the situation in Libya, the authorities might have their own reasons for wanting to dispose of the Abedis. But the larger story is that they never should have become the UK's problem.
The case has obvious parallels to the Tsarnaevs who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings.
In both cases siblings from a refugee family targeted a public place in their host country for a brutal act of terror. The simple solution would have been to keep them out.

Morrissey Is Hated for Loving England

 (Bild: Screenshot Facebook)

 Sreenshot Facebook

Spin headlined its take on Morrissey’s reaction to a Muslim killing 22 in his hometown: “Morrissey Says Something Predictably Dumb About the Manchester Bombing.”

The former Smiths singer’s words frequently provoke words—downcast, acerbic, arrogant, and bratty come to mind. But rarely do the critics dub the rarely criticized “dumb.” The Mancunian received not a pass but praise for such song titles as “Margaret on the Guillotine” and “I Have Forgiven Jesus.” You may wish for the death of the country’s prime minister and poke fun at the religious figure inspiring its flag. The country’s Muslim extremists remain off limits.
Here’s from Moz’s Facebook post:
Theresa May says such attacks “will not break us”, but her own life is lived in a bullet-proof bubble, and she evidently does not need to identify any young people today in Manchester morgues. Also, “will not break us” means that the tragedy will not break her, or her policies on immigration. The young people of Manchester are already broken – thanks all the same, Theresa. Sadiq Khan says “London is united with Manchester”, but he does not condemn Islamic State – who have claimed responsibility for the bomb. The Queen receives absurd praise for her ‘strong words’ against the attack, yet she does not cancel today’s garden party at Buckingham Palace – for which no criticism is allowed in the Britain of free press. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says the attack is the work of an “extremist”. An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?
In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private.
Salman Ramadan Albedi, not Simon Reginald Albert, murdered 22 concertgoers. This, Morrissey’s post suggests, matters.
English people raised not to hate their country generally do not hate their country.
Namedropping John Keats and Oscar Wilde here, writing a sonic ode to Reggie and Ronnie Kray there, Morrissey strikes as a mélange of the good, the bad, and the ugly of English culture. He drinks up it all. American travelers learn the geographic quirks of London neighborhoods through the male hustlers who speak a silly “palare” in Picadilly Circus, from a “repressed but remarkably dressed” hairdresser in Sloane Square, and via the “hope and despair” of Battersea. His oeuvre, apart from provoking antidepressant prescriptions, works as a massive love missive to his homeland.
Sure, he has lived in Los Angeles, inspired a cult following in Mexico, and declared “London is dead.” But as an earlier English poet pointed out, “What should they know of England who only England know?”
Morrissey is hated for loving—England.

Danish Political Party Proposes Building Fence on German Border

The anti-mass migration populist Danish People’s party (DF) have proposed building a fence on the border with Germany after making a trip to Hungary.

The DF announced they would like to see a border fence along the southern border with Germany which would include security cameras, barbed wire, and deportation zones for migrants.
Much like Hungary, the DF would see migrants claiming asylum held in the area near the border until their asylum claim had been processed, Focus Online reports.
The proposal bears a striking similarity to the Hungarian border fence. The DF recently visited Hungary in which the Danes were able to examine the effectiveness of the Hungarian barrier and were likely inspired.
The party says with the aid of a border fence they would be able to reduce the number of migrants coming into the country by 95 per cent.
“If the Germans have a problem with it, if they say that the refugees come from Greece or Austria, then they have to put their own border under control,” said DF Member of European Parliament (MEP) Anders Vistisen.
Danish politician and member of the government Morten Løkkegaard has called the proposal “absurd”. Løkkegaard added: “It makes no sense to build a three-metre-high wall in the middle of Europe.
The DF are currently the second strongest faction in the Danish parliament, which is currently ruled by a minority government lending some weight to the proposal.
A prominent member of the party called for toppling the minority government last year in order to push through legislation that would temporarily ban Muslim immigration. The party has also expressed interest in getting Denmark out of the European Union and holding a referendum on the country’s membership.  
The Hungarian border fence was one of the first physical barriers to be erected as a result of the migrant crisis in 2015. Since then, the Hungarians have built a second barrier and have greatly increased the number of border guards on their southern border with Serbia.
Hungary has also been adamant in resisting the EU’s plans to redistribute migrants from Italy and Greece along with several other Central European countries.
As a result of the policy, along with detaining all asylum seekers, the political bloc has threatened to enact sanctions on the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Hungary, along with Poland, has been given a deadline of June to start letting in more migrants.

Manchester: Europe Still 'Shocked, Shocked'

by Judith Bergman
  • After hearing of the Manchester terrorist attack, politicians once more communicated their by now old-routine of "shock" and "grief" at the predictable outcome of their own policies.
  • Most dumbfounding of all, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was watching the developments in Manchester "with grief and horror" and that she found the attack "incomprehensible".
  • Every time a European leader publicly endorses Islam as a great faith, a "religion of peace", or claims that violence in Islam is a "perversion of a great faith", despite massive evidence to the contrary, they signal in the strongest way possible that with every devastating attack, the West is ripe for the taking.
When ISIS attacked the Bataclan Theater in Paris in November 2015, it did so because, in its own words, it was "where hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice." A year earlier, ISIS had forbidden all music as haram (forbidden). Many Islamic scholars support the idea that Islam forbids the 'sinful' music of the West.
It should, therefore, not be a surprise to anybody that Islamic terrorists might target a concert by the American pop singer Ariana Grande in Manchester on May 22. In addition, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned last September that terrorists are focused on concerts, sporting events and outdoor gatherings because such venues "often pursue simple, achievable attacks with an emphasis on economic impact and mass casualties".
Islamic State claimed responsibility for the Manchester suicide bombing, in which a device laced with screws and bolts was detonated. Twenty-two people, children and adults, were murdered in the explosion that ripped through the Manchester concert area; more than 50 people were wounded. While the media is describing the use of nail bombs at the concert hall as a new and surprising tactic, it is in fact an extremely old one, practiced by Arab terrorists on Israelis for decades.
A police officer stands guard near the Manchester Arena on May 23, 2017, following a suicide bombing by an Islamic terrorist who murdered 22 concert-goers. (Photo by Dave Thompson/Getty Images)
Nevertheless, after hearing of the Manchester terrorist attack, politicians once more communicated their by now old-routine of "shock" and "grief" at the predictable outcome of their own policies. The usual platitudes of "thoughts and hearts" being with the victims of the attack, accompanied professed shock.
President of the European Council Donald Tusk, tweeted: "My heart is in Manchester this night. Our thoughts are with the victims." Leader of the British Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, condemned the "shocking and horrific" attack. British Home Secretary Amber Rudd said it was a "tragic incident", while Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn called it a "terrible incident". Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his citizens were "shocked by the news of the horrific attack in Manchester tonight". Most dumbfounding of all, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was watching the developments in Manchester "with grief and horror" and that she found the attack "incomprehensible".
After 9/11 in the United States; the 2004 Madrid train bombings, which killed nearly 200 and wounded 2000; the 2005 attacks on London's transit system where 56 people were killed and 700 wounded; the 2015 attacks in Paris, where ISIS killed 130 people and wounded nearly 400; the March 2016 attacks on the Brussels airport and metro station, where 31 people were killed and 300 wounded; the July 2016 attack in Nice, where 86 people, including ten children, were killed and more than 200 people wounded; the December 2016 attack in Berlin, where 12 people were killed and almost 50 wounded; the March 2017 attack on Westminster that killed three people and wounded more than 20; the April 2017 attack in Stockholm, where 5 people were killed, including one 11-year-old girl; let alone countless attacks in Israel, Western leaders have run out of all conceivable excuses to be shocked and surprised at Islamic terrorism occurring in their cities at ever-increasing frequency.
All the above-mentioned attacks are just the spectacular ones. There have been innumerable others, sometimes at the rate of several attacks per month, which barely made the headlines, such as the Muslim man who, a little over a month ago, tortured and stabbed a 66-year-old Jewish woman in Paris and then, while shouting "Allahu Akbar", threw her out of the window; or the Paris airport attacker in March, who came "to die for Allah" and accomplished his goal without, miraculously, taking any innocent bystanders with him,
After the last spectacular terrorist atrocity in the UK, which aimed at the very heart of European democratic civilization by targeting the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge, British PM Theresa May said: "It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism and the perversion of a great faith".
It is impossible to fight back against that which you refuse to understand or acknowledge, but then again, European leaders seem to have no intention of fighting back, as they have evidently chosen an entirely different tactic, namely that of appeasement.
Every time a European leader publicly endorses Islam as a great faith, a "religion of peace", or claims that violence in Islam is a "perversion of a great faith", despite massive evidence to the contrary -- the actual violent contents of the Quran and the hadiths, which include repeated exhortations to fight the "infidels" -- they signal in the strongest way possible to organizations such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and Hamas, that with every devastating attack, the West is ripe for the taking. The terror organizations and their supporters see European leaders' immense fear of causing even the slightest offense, despite protestations to the contrary from leaders such as Theresa May.
The fear is accompanied by a persistent resolve to pretend, at whatever cost -- even that of the lives of their citizens -- that Europe is not at war, even though it is blindingly clear that others are at war with it.
These terrorist organizations perceive that when ministers in countries such as Sweden, where according to news reports, 150 ISIS fighters have returned and are apparently walking around freely, propose the integration of Islamic State jihadists back into Swedish society -- as a solution to terrorism! -- it will not take much more effort to make these leaders submit completely, as Sweden almost certainly has. This "solution" can only work on terrorists as encouragement to carry out even more terrorism -- as is overwhelmingly evident from the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks on European soil.
While European politicians, incredibly, believe that their tactics are preventing terrorism, they are in fact empowering it as much as possible: Terrorists do not react to heartfelt sympathy, teddy bears and candlelit vigils. If anything, it arguably makes them even more disgusted with Western society, which they want to transform into a caliphate under Islamic sharia law.
Politicians seem to lose sight all the time of the Islamist goal of the caliphate. Islamic terrorism is not "mindless violence" but clearly calculated terror to force the eventual submission of the targeted society. So far, with the West inert and in denial, the terrorists seem to be winning.

Manchester Bomber Attended ‘Jihadi’ Mosque Accused of Funding al-Qaeda


The mosque attended by the Manchester suicide bomber has been described as a “jihadist” institution, and it has previously been accused of raising funds for an al-Qaeda affiliated terror group.

The Didsbury mosque was well known to Salman Abedi and his direct family. The terrorist learnt the Quran there, his brother taught Islamic lessons there, and his father, Abu Abedi, was a “well known” figure who performed the Muslim call to prayer.
On the ‘Muslims in Britain’ mosques directory, the institution is described as a “Salafi-Ikhwani” mosque, which “is a nicer way of saying jihadist”, according to Ghaffar Husain, head outreach at the Quilliam Foundation, a think-tank that has advised the Government.
Salafism is an austere, fundamentalist strain of Islam, with adherents aiming to live as Muhammad and the first Muslim did in the seventh century.

The mosque’s management is described as Syrian and Arab, and the city’s Libyan community, one of the largest in the UK, reportedly frequents it. The Abedi family lived just a short distance from the building and neighbours have talked about them flying a Libyan flag flying from their house.
Mr. Abedi is believed to have visited Libya earlier this year and, according to friends, returned a few weeks ago. His family left Libya as asylum seekers, and police are probing alleged links to the hard line Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was until recently affiliated to al-Qaeda.
“[His farther] Abu Ismail comes and goes between here and there,” a family friend told The Guardian. “I can’t believe [Salman Abedi] would have been radicalised in Tripoli. All those types have been driven out of the city. It must have happened here.
“But what was he doing, murdering all those people. There must have been somebody influencing him. It’s terrible. He was off his head,” they said.
In 2005, an LIFG fighter was arrested in Libya. He was accused of terror offences and told a court he had previously lived in Manchester, where he raised money for the al-Qaeda-linked group at Didsbury mosque after being granted asylum in the UK. The mosque denied the claim.
The mosque building was originally the “Albert Park Methodist Chapel”, which opened its doors in 1883 before closing in 1962 and later being converted into a mosque.
It is part of the Manchester Islamic Centre, which is registered as a charity with the Charity Commission and receives state benefits accordingly.

Austria: Iraqi refugee’s sentence lowered to 4 years in prison for raping 10 y/o boy

In 2015, an Iraqi man entered Austria though the so-called Balkan route. On 2 December that year, he took a boy by the hand, locked him in the toilet of a swimming pool and raped him. The boy reached out to the lifeguard, who alerted the police. The police responded rapidly and were able to arrest the suspect, who had gone back to the three-metre diving boards.
The boy suffered wounds so severe, he had to be treated in hospital. Months later, it made the news, as the first part of the trial got underway.
The case reached the Supreme Court last year, which decided the case needs a retrial.
Why? Because the Supreme Court decided that the lower court should have ascertained, whether or not the perpetrator thought that the victim was in agreement with the sexual act. The supreme court thought that it was not sufficiently established that the perpetrator acted against the will of the victim. The refugee was twenty years old, the boy was ten.
When the retrial took place, the Higher Court reached a verdict of seven years; way lower than the maximum of 15 years it could have given.
But yesterday, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that even that sentence was too severe, and lowered the punishment to 4 years in prison in a final verdict.
Four years are appropriate here,” the President of the court, Thomas Philipp, stressed in his extensive elaboration on the verdict in court. After all, the criminal offence was a “one-time occurrence.”
One should not lose all sense of proportion,” judge Philipp said. In handing out a sentence, it should not be forgotten that the defendant had no prior conviction – that the court knew of, anyway – and the fact that he was not yet 21-years-old when he committed the crime.
That the first court emphasised the “severity of the crime” and the “unforeseeable consequences“, held no sway with the Supreme Court. For these, Philipp said, there was a lack of “concrete statements” and it is “quite possible that no consequences materialise.” Even if “according to a psychiatric opinion, the boy had demonstrably developed a post-traumatic stress disorder after the fact.

When first questioned by the police, the man initially wrongly accused a 15-year-old of inciting him to act. Then, however, he made a statement to the effect that he “followed his lust” after “not having had sex for four months.” A statement he stuck by through the entire court case.