Les 150 mosquées radicales se rejoignent dans des exhortations qui fondent la violence djihadiste.

Comment le salafisme progresse en banlieuePar Alexandre Devecchio
"On s'étonnera que le salafisme, qui prône le retour au mode de vie du prophète, qui pratiquent la polygamie interdite par la loi, une inégalité entre hommes et femmes qui va jusqu'à effacer l'identité de ces dernières, imposant le voile intégrale et le retrait total de notre société, de façon discriminatoire, rejette la République en bloc et avec elle-même la musique… ne soit pas interdite sur notre territoire."

LE FIGARO. - Abdelhamid Abaaoud, cerveau présumé des attaques de vendredi à Paris, abattu par le RAID, se cachait à Saint-Denis. Êtes-vous surpris?

Guylain CHEVRIER. - Pas vraiment. La Seine-Saint-Denis pourrait dégager comme des ondes positives pour ces fous de dieu, même si des lieux plus neutres peuvent satisfaire à leurs desseins. Ceci étant, on sait combien ce département concentre une population issue de l'immigration où le culte musulman est particulièrement présent. On a vu s'y mettre en place un communautarisme qui fonctionne comme un marqueur, avec une tendance à la désertion de la mixité sociale, où les valeurs de la République passent à l'arrière-plan d'un religieux qui tient la place. Du fast-food 100% halal (Mak d'Hal) au coiffeur strictement réservé aux femmes avec une salle spéciale pour les femmes voilées (1), à l'IUT de Saint-Denis dont le directeur a été amené à fermer une salle confiée à une association communautaire transformée en salle de prière, le décor est posé.

Certains encouragent ce climat, en faisant campagne sur des thèmes comme l'abrogation de la loi d'interdiction de dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, auquel on mélange le soutien aux Palestiniens, au ressort explosif. Sans compter encore avec le clientélisme politico-religieux qui accompagne cette évolution, sur laquelle on ferme les yeux.

«La Seine-Saint-Denis, on le sait, est un de ces départements où on peut rencontrer des mosquées où le salafisme prolifère voire, où on se réclame ouvertement de l'Etat islamique.»

La Seine-Saint-Denis, on le sait, est un de ces départements où on peut rencontrer des mosquées où le salafisme prolifère voire, où on se réclame ouvertement de l'Etat islamique. Un cadre qui peut être ressenti par des radicaux comme un milieu particulièrement favorable comme base d'organisation et de repli, de mise à l'abri, sans attirer l'attention. D'ailleurs, on apprend que le groupe a aussi pour une part, recruté en Seine-Saint-Denis. La jeune radicalisée morte lors de l'assaut, a sa famille à Aulnay-sous-Bois. Elle serait une cousine d'Abdelhamid Abaaoud, organisateur présumé des attentats, tué lors de l'assaut donné sur l'appartement de Saint-Denis. Différents éléments qui justifient, à tout le moins, une vigilance particulière.

Existe-t-il un lien entre délinquance et radicalisation?

Le délinquant est un sujet flottant, qui est dans «le hors la loi» et en même temps, qui a une famille, le cas échéant une religion, des racines identitaires ainsi qu'un groupe d'appartenance, voire plusieurs. Il n'est donc pas hors société, mais dans une situation de fragilisation sociale. On sait que la radicalisation se développe sur la base d'un recrutement qui passe en général par la rencontre entre un schéma de pensée et une vulnérabilité, souvent passagère, altérant les mécanismes de défense de l'individu, pour l'endoctriner.

............................

"Les 150 mosquées radicales (chiffre du ministère de l'intérieur) qui en France appellent à la haine, se rejoignent dans des exhortations qui fondent la violence djihadiste. Ils jouissent d'une écoute, sans jamais avoir provoqué des dénonciations ciblées et publiques de la part des autres religieux musulmans, montrant qu'ils jouissent d'une impunité dans leur propre champ d'action religieux et dans des quartiers, et même bien au-delà."

Lire la suite: www.lefigaro.fr

L’Unione Europea è impegnata in una grande opera di ingegneria sociale e di decostruzione della civiltà europea...

Unione Gender-Europea


di Rodolfo Casadei

Per promuovere l’“uguaglianza di genere”, si sono inventati una istituzione (Eige) che ispira corsi di formazione e di aggiornamento per gli insegnanti. Dall’asilo fino all’università


Articolo tratto dal numero di Tempi in edicola (vai alla pagina degli abbonamenti) – L’Unione Europea è impegnata in una grande opera di ingegneria sociale e di decostruzione della civiltà europea attraverso l’imposizione delle politiche di genere e del gender mainstreaming, espressione che significa: tenere conto delle implicazioni che le legislazioni e le politiche hanno sugli uomini e sulle donne in termini di promozione o di arretramento dell’uguaglianza fra i sessi. Non si tratta semplicemente – e giustamente – di permettere alle donne di conciliare lavoro e maternità, di combattere le disuguaglianze di retribuzione fra maschi e femmine per lo stesso lavoro, di prevenire le discriminazioni legate al sesso, di contrastare il machismo e gli abusi ai danni delle donne. L’Europa considera “stereotipi di genere” da sovvertire cose come il fatto che le donne dedichino più tempo degli uomini ai lavori domestici e alla cura dei pargoli, che ci siano tante donne nei “lavori di cura” (sanità e insegnamento) e troppo poche fra gli ingegneri e nei consigli di amministrazione delle multinazionali, che nelle fiabe siano i cavalieri a salvare le principesse e non viceversa, che i film abbiano più attori protagonisti uomini che donne.

Del fatto che gli uomini e le donne siano diversi non solo anatomicamente, ma anche neurologicamente, psicologicamente e psichicamente; che le differenze dei ruoli di genere nelle società europee siano parte del patrimonio culturale dei vari popoli e frutto della loro esperienza storica; che su di esse si possa intervenire, ma con la prudenza e col rispetto dovuto alle eredità culturali che arrivano da lontano, ai politici (europarlamentari) e ai burocrati di Bruxelles non importa assolutamente nulla: per loro tutto ciò che non coincide con l’eguaglianza quantitativa di potere e di disponibilità economica fra i due sessi e tutto ciò che potrebbe alludere a un’inferiorità di un sesso rispetto all’altro sotto un certo aspetto, va spazzato via. Perché è residuo di epoche oscurantiste ed espressione dell’oppressione della donna da parte dell’uomo. I vertici della Commissione e del Parlamento europei sognano un continente dove le camioniste sono tante quanti i camionisti e i maestri d’asilo tanti quante le maestre; dove i giorni di congedo familiare sono esattamente identici sia per la mamma che ha partorito e allatta sia per il papà che non potrà mai allattare col suo seno; dove a sistemare la casa dei Banks non è Mary Poppins, ma un giovanotto piovuto dal cielo con un parapendio.

...................

Leggi di Più: www.tempi.it

"This very powerful, distorted simplification of Catholic doctrine- for that is what Mahommedanism is - may be of high effect in the near future upon Christendom" Hilaire Belloc

ISIS aims to take territory

BY SHANNON ROBERTS

The so called ‘Islamic state’ is an increasing presence on the world map. When Mohammed first saw his vision 1400 years ago, Islam, the new teaching of Mohammed, began to take territory. Hilaire Belloc, an Anglo-French writer and historian and one of the most prolific writers in England during the early twentieth century, wrote in his books The Great Heresies and Survivals and New Arrivals:

Within a hundred years, a main part of the Roman world had fallen under the power of this new and strange force from the Desert. Such a revolution had never been. No earlier attack had been so sudden, so violent or so permanently successful. Within a score of years from the first assault in 634 the Christian Levant had gone: Syria, the cradle of the Faith, and Egypt with Alexandria, the mighty Christian See. Within a lifetime half the wealth and nearly half the territory of the Christian Roman Empire was in the hands of Mohammedan masters and officials, and the mass of the population was becoming affected more and more by this new thing.

… For centuries the struggle between Islam and the Catholic Church continued. It had varying fortunes, but for something like a thousand years the issue still remained doubtful. It was not till nearly the year 1700 that Christian culture seemed - for a time - to be definitely the master.

ISIS is now taking territory in Iraq and Syria. They aim to submit the whole world to Muslim law, which encompasses politics, economics, family, science, and soul. However, the current disconnect in American politics regarding the nature of this group is interesting. Modern Western culture is now post-Christian with secular values and beliefs less fully defined and clear than those held by previous societies. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are fervently wary of using terminology other than ‘terrorists’. Last week Hillary Clinton stated: “Let’s be clear though, Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Presidential candidate Ted Cruz holds a different view, emphasising "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – the modern democratic party has a blindness to radical Islamic terrorism and they’ve endangered the safety and security of this country, the safety and security of millions of Americans.” He maintains that much of Obama's foreign policy has allowed ISIS to become stronger.

It is clear that ISIS, at least, believes that it is charged with changing the demography of the entire world, because that is what its reading of Islam charges it to do. Noah Feldman, a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard, makes some interesting comments about ISIS’s current strategy:

• To understand the strategic objectives of the Beirut bombings, begin by putting yourself in the shoes of the planners. Almost all of Islamic State's successes have come under identical circumstances.

• In essence, the group's trademark is to exploit the vacuum in weak or crumbling states. This includes Syria, where civil war rages, and the Sunni area of Iraq, where the Baghdad government's writ barely ran even before Islamic State took over.

• It also includes those far-flung places where self- declared affiliates have sprung up to exploit power vacuums, particularly Libya and Afghanistan.

• In Egypt, the state is relatively strong, but Islamic State nevertheless is challenging it at its weakest points. The bombings in August of government security facilities in Cairo, attributed to Islamic State, were intended to push Egypt into chaos.

• Since then, the downing of the Russian jet, almost certainly carried out by Islamic State affiliates in Sinai, has revealed this strategy further by raising questions about Egypt's ability to function as a sovereign state that protects air travel.

• Lebanon is a far more fragile state than Egypt.

• And it has a far greater advantage as an Islamic State target: Its proximity to the Syrian battlefield.

• Right now, the group has no direction in which it can plausibly expand its territory except Lebanon. Turkey, Jordan, Iran and Saudi Arabia are all strong states that won't countenance the loss of land.

• Lebanon, however, is vulnerable to civil war, which would create the vacuum Islamic State needs.

We are all interested in stopping them. In the West we do not sanction murder to get our way.

...................

- See more at: www.mercatornet.com

Smugglers take between $4,000 and $10,000 to transport a single refugee from Syria or Libya to Europe ...

Strategic Engineered Migration as Weapon of War

by Leonid SAVIN 

"In recent years, it has been widely argued that a new and different armament — i.e., the refugee as weapon — has entered the world's arsenals." (*)

After reading the title, you may think it is describing the phenomenon that Europe has recently been facing: the hundreds of thousands of refugees, both victims of the hardships of civil wars and opportunists, who are invading the Balkans by land and by sea and then making their way further, trying to reach richer countries like Germany, France and Scandinavia by any means possible.

It would seem that this stream of refugees has objective reasons: armed conflicts and wars have been going on in Libya, Syria and Iraq for many years, while the situation is also turbulent in Palestine and Afghanistan. In Tunisia and Egypt, meanwhile, both of which experienced the Arab Spring, the situation also leaves much to be desired. Hardly anybody is taking notice of Bahrain, where opposition protests have been brutally suppressed for years, while in Yemen, air strikes are even being carried out on wedding processions. The location of these two states is not very convenient, however – there is simply nowhere to flee. There is also another important detail: camps are being built for Muslim refugees in Saudi Arabia, but nobody is going there for some reason. As a last resort, they stay in Jordan and Turkey.

Is there also some general reason for their frantic desire to flee so far from their homeland? Wealthy relatives who have already settled in the European Union, perhaps? Or stories about welfare benefits on which they will be able to live comfortably? After all, to make such a journey they have to pay handsomely for the services of smugglers. According to some reports, these smugglers take between $4,000 and $10,000 to transport a single refugee from Syria or Libya to Europe. Even if this person has wealthy relatives abroad, receiving money via bank transfer is impossible in war-torn Syria. Organising transportation on credit clearly involves certain guarantees, especially considering that the boats often sink in the Mediterranean.

Who is providing guarantees that encourage hundreds of thousands of people to rush from other continents to Europe and why?

Researchers have discovered a very interesting fact related to the use of social networking sites. It has come to light that calls on Twitter for refugees to travel to Germany have mostly come from the US. The time spent practising in other countries has not been in vain – from Iran during the 2009 presidential elections to Egypt and Tunisia, where the role played by social networking sites in mobilising the population was considerable.

What we are seeing now is the practical implementation of theoretical calculations of a strategic nature. Such strategies have been under development for a long time. One of them is a study by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University that bears the name «Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War», which the author also uses for the title of this article. The study was first published in 2008 in the Civil Warsjournal. Using a combination of statistical data and case study analysis, the author of the work, Kelly Greenhill, provides answers to the following questions: can refugees be a specific type of weapon, can this weapon only be used in wartime or in peacetime as well, and just how successful can its exploitation be? On the whole, Greenhill answers these questions in the affirmative.

In fact, researchers at the Belfer Center, along with researchers from other departments at Harvard University, have been working on designing strategies for conflict management in the context of broader foreign policy issues for many years. The director of the Belfer Center, Graham Allison, was an assistant secretary of defence in the Clinton administration. As well as this, the Center also funds the research of a special task force devoted to Russia.

The US is only pretending to sympathise with Europe, which is being hit hard by the migratory wave. In a recent article by Richard Haass, president of the influential globalist organisation Council on Foreign Relations that deals with European issues, the use of the word «managing” with regard to the migration crisis in the European Union was no accident. Savouring the problems being faced by Europe as a result of the influx of refugees, Haass notes that the US has both an obligation to help the European Union and strategic interests with regard to Germany and Europe as a whole. Despite this "obligation to help”, however, there has been no help at all from the US either in controlling the illegal infiltration of European countries or in terms of the temporary settlement of refugees.

There is also another interesting fact. On 15 September, Barack Obama signed an executive order on the use of behavioural science techniques in public administration. The most recent branch of behaviourism, known as «Nudge”, is nothing more than the latest way to manipulate people. The hand of Cass Sunstein, who previously worked at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, can clearly be seen here. Along with a British colleague, he co-authored the bookNudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, in which psychological manipulation techniques in the context of everyday life are hidden behind fine words. (Incidentally, Sunstein’s wife is Samantha Power, United States Ambassador to the UN.) There is no doubt that the ‘nudge’ technique will be used far beyond the borders of the US.

The most effective weapon, however, both metaphorically and literally, may be those migrants capable of setting up a small guerrilla group to carry out subversive terrorist acts on the new territory. It is rather interesting that the US is not just playing host to the ones who seem the most ‘promising’ for this, but is also granting them refugee and resident status as well as the official protection of the US government.

As far as one can judge from a recently leaked internal document, a special report to US Congress for the 2014 financial year on the issue of migration prepared by the US Department of Homeland Security states that in 2014, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services applied 1,519 exemptions to individual applicants granted refugee status, resident status, and the official protection of the US government. And the most interesting thing is that in one way or another, all of these people have links with terrorist groups and extensive experience of subversive activities.

The list includes old allies of Washington from among Cuban exiles, Kosovo Liberation Army militants who for some reason cannot live well in their own artificially created state, and many other covert and overt allies of the US. There are members of the Nationalist Republican Alliance from Salvador, most likely those who shot political opponents during the Cold War and are now hiding from justice. There are fighters from the Democratic Movement for the Liberation of Eritrean Kunama – ethno-separatists who are opposed to the Eritrean government. There is the Tigray People’s Liberation Front from Ethiopia and the Oromo Liberation Front from the same country.

The list also includes activists from the Burmese Chin National Front and its military wing, the Chin National Army, which are members of the so-called Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO). Members of the Karen National Union, including militants of the Karen National Liberation Army (an ethnic group living in Burma and Thailand) also received a quota to live in the US on the spot.

Refugee status was given to 49 former Iraqi citizens from the Iraqi Democratic Party, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The list of «1,519 exemptions” also includes members of other organisations that have devoted many years to armed conflicts.

One can only speculate on the kind of future wars the US has in mind if it is planning to use such specific migrants as a weapon.
............................

Read more: www.strategic-culture.org

(*) "Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War"
Journal Article, Civil Wars, volume 10, issue 1, pages 6-21 - March 2008
Author: Kelly M. Greenhill, Research Fellow, International Security Program
Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security; Intrastate Conflict Program


ABSTRACT

• In recent years, it has been widely argued that a new and different armament — i.e., the refugee as weapon — has entered the world's arsenals. 
• But just how new and different is this weapon? Can it only be used in wartime? And just how successful has been its exploitation? 
• Using a combination of statistical data and case study analysis, this article tackles these questions and provides a detailed examination of the instrumental manipulation of population movements as political and military weapons of war. 
• In addition to 'mapping the terrain' of the issue by providing a comprehensive typology of the most common means by — and desired ends for — which displaced persons have been used as political and military weapons since the end of the Cold War, the author also provides a portrait of the identities of the kinds of actors most likely to engage in this kind of exploitation. 
• She also proposes an explanation for what motivates them to resort — and apparently increasingly so — to the use of this unconventional policy tool, despite the reputational and potential retributive costs of doing so.

Dr. Greenhill is also the author of Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy (Cornell University Press, 2010).

• For more information about this publication please contact the ISP Program Coordinator at 617-496-1981.
• For Academic Citation: Greenhill, Kelly M. "Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War." Civil Wars 10, no. 1 (March 2008): 6-21.

RELATED PUBLICATIONS

• "The Perils of Profiling: Civil War Spoilers and the Collapse of Intrastate Peace Accords" - By Kelly M. Greenhill and Solomon Major
• "Ten Ways to Lose at Counterinsurgency" - By Kelly M. Greenhill and Paul Staniland
• "The Myth of the Borderless World: Refugees and Repatriation Policy" - By Monica Duffy Toft
• "No Place to Hide: Refugees, Displaced Persons, and the Recruitment of Child Soldiers" - By Vera Achvarina and Simon Reich
• "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: The Causes of Civilian Victimization in War" - By Alexander B. Downes

The intolerance of secularism is “nothing more than a new pseudo-religion”

Archbishop Gänswein Praises Cardinal Sarah for His Prophetic Witness

by Edward Pentin



Cardinal Robert Sarah’s boldness in proclaiming the Gospel and resisting the Zeitgeist is a prophetic witness reminiscent of a 5th century North African Pope who laid the foundations for healthy church-state relations, Archbishop George Gänswein has said.

In a well-received speech in Rome Nov. 20 at the launch of the German edition of the book ‘God or Nothing’ — an interview with Cardinal Sarah by Nicolas Diat — the personal secretary of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI compared the cardinal favorably to Pope Galasius I whom the Church, by coincidence, commemorated on Nov. 20.

Gelasius' letter to the Emperor Anastasius I of Constantinople in 494 put spiritual and secular power on an equal footing and helped pave the way for Western democracy.

Commenting on the book, Archbishop Gänswein, who also serves as prefect of the Pontifical Household, said every generation faces giving in to a “totalitarian temptation” that always accompanies the history of the Church “like a shadow”.

Today, he said, it is manifested in the West’s attempt to “overturn, step by step, the natural law at the behest of globally active pressure groups”.

He mentioned gender ideology as an example, adding that the intolerance of secularism is “nothing more than a new pseudo-religion” which once again “takes up where the totalitarian ideologies of the last century left off.” Similarly, he warned that when the state becomes a religion, it is “horrifically expressed in the so-called Islamic State.”

But neither the state nor the Zeitgeist “has the right” to claim omnipotence, Archbishop Gänswein said. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Absolutely. But unto God what is God's! It is on this distinction that Cardinal Sarah today insists; a solitary, frank and intrepid voice.”

Archbishop Gänswein went on to say that ‘God or Nothing’ is a radical book in the sense of taking us back to the “roots of our faith.” It “opens our eyes” to the fact that “new forms of indifference to God are not just mental deviations one can simply ignore”, but represent “an existential threat to human civilization par excellence.”

Actively proclaiming the Gospel is “gaining urgency” in this “precarious situation”, the German prelate said, and “in this hour he [Cardinal Sarah] arises, prophetically.” Revelation, he reminded those present, “must not be adapted to the world” as the world “wants to devour God." But God, on the other hand, "wants to attract and convince us and the world.”

He stressed that the book is neither “a manifesto nor a polemic” but a “guide to God who has shown his face in Jesus Christ”. He also said it is a Vademecum (handbook) for the upcoming Jubilee Year which can teach “valuable lessons about the nature of mercy.”

"Mercy and rigor of teaching can only exist together," Archbishop Gänswein said, quoting the great Dominican theologian, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. "The Church is in her principles intolerant, because she believes, and she is tolerant in practice, because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant with regards to the principles because they do not believe, and they are intolerant in practice because they do not love”.

Cardinal Sarah, Archbishop Gänswein said in closing, “is someone who loves”, a man who shows us “how and which masterpiece God wants to shape us into if we do not oppose His artist’s hands.”

During the recent Synod on the Family, Cardinal Sarah gave one of the strongest interventions of the three week meeting, comparing gender ideology and the Islamic State to "apocalyptic beasts".

---------------

Here below is the full text of Archbishop Gänswein’s speech:

To the Roots!

By Georg Gänswein, 20 November 2015

Most Reverend Cardinal Sarah! Eminences, Your Excellencies, Dear Brothers, Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!

As I was reading the galleys of your book "God or nothing" this past summer, your candour repeatedly reminded me of the boldness with which Pope Gelasius I in the Rome of the year 494 wrote a famous letter to the Emperor Anastasius I of Constantinople. When at last a suitable date for the presentation of this book here in the Anima was found, I discovered that it is today of all days, on the 20th of November, that the Church commemorates this pope. Today the Church celebrates Pope Gelasius from North Africa. Allow me therefore to briefly say a few words about his letter from the year 494.

Eighteen years before it was written, in the year 476, Germanic tribes had overrun the ancient capital. The Völkerwanderung – the mass migration of peoples – had begun, which brought about the end of the Western Roman Empire. Of that once so powerful empire there remained only the powerless Church of Rome.

It was in this situation that Pope Gelasius wrote the following to the East Roman emperor in Byzantium: To govern the world there is not just one power but two. This we know since the Lord gave to his apostles, after the Last Supper (Luke 22:38), the mysterious information, "two swords", which they had just handed to him, were "enough". However, these two swords would have to be, according to his conception, shared by the Emperor and the Pope throughout history. In other words, with this letter Pope Gelasius I put spiritual and secular power on an equal footing. There should be no more omnipotence. Pope and Emperor were – for the benefit of all people! – considered as partners before God.

..................

Read more: www.ncregister.com

It obfuscates the issue to speak of terrorism in generic terms. ”Allahu akbar” has become a celebration of violence and destruction ...

Father Rosica on Islam: 180º from reality

By Phil Lawler


"Allahu akbar" was never a call to violence & destruction.

That astonishing quote comes from the Father Thomas Rosica, the English-language attaché of the Vatican press office, in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris.

What is “astonishing” about the statement? Simply that it is so clearly wrong, so blatantly at odds with the facts. Does Father Rosica expect his readers to forget the many times in recent years when we have heard those words, ”Allahu akbar,” invoked precisely as a celebration of violence and destruction?

Father Rosica’s statement is obviously false. And he knows it’s false, because in the blog post from which it is taken, he goes on to talk about the proper response to Islamic extremism. “Muslim leaders and moderate Muslims need to condemn acts of violence and terror,” he says, and on that we can all agree.

The danger confronting our world is Islamic terrorism. It obfuscates the issue to speak of terrorism in generic terms, as the Obama White House does. It muddies the waters to remark, in the context of the deaths in Paris, that all religious faiths have been tainted by violence. (Are you worried about Presbyterian terrorists?) Nor is it helpful to observe that most Muslims are peaceful. Of course the terrorists are a minority, but they are a very dangerous minority, and we cannot ignore their appeal. Why are so many Muslims tempted toward violence?

Even before asking that question, let alone resolving the answer, some people—like Father Rosica, like President Obama—seem determined to believe (or to pretend) that there is no link between Islam and terror. Is it a coincidence, then, that so many terrorists have recruited their troops from the ranks of Islamic zealots (perhaps the same sort of coincidence as the 80 consecutive years of bad weather that resulted in disappointing harvests in Russia under Communism)?

Apparently many people in the West are loath to link Islam with terrorists for fear of offending moderate Muslims. But any peace-loving Muslims should be as worried as we are by the prospect of Islamic terrorism—more worried, indeed, because their faith is being abused and disgraced. Responsible Muslim leaders should be anxious to join in any effort to root out the problem.

The reality is 180º removed from Father Rosica’s statement. “Allahu akbar” has become a call to violence and destruction. That’s a very large problem for the West, but it’s also a problem for moderate Islam. If some Muslims deny the problem—if they take offense when the problem is mentioned—then they’re part of the problem.


(*) Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org

Source: www.catholicculture.org

Military intervention against ISIL - The fundamental things apply As time goes by... Casablanca (1942)

Putin – Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man

By Finian Cunningham

Almost everyone now recognises that Russia’s military intervention in Syria to defeat the so-called Islamic State terror group was the right call to make. Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t crowing about it. He doesn’t have to.

Putin’s vindication was made clear by the enthusiastic reception afforded to him at the summit of G20 leaders in Turkey last weekend. The Financial Times headlined: “Putin transformed from outcast to problem solver at G20”.

The paper went on to note that: “An audience with the Russian president was one of the hottest tickets in town, as Western leaders were forced to recognise the road to peace in Syria inevitably runs through Moscow.”

Even US President Barack Obama was seen to confer with Putin as the two leaders held an impromptu and earnest face-to-face discussion on the sidelines of the summit.

It was a constructive encounter with none of the antagonism that Washington has all too often displayed towards Putin over the past year. The Paris terror assault – with 129 dead and hundreds wounded in simultaneous gun and bomb attacks – no doubt concentrated the minds of world leaders attending the G20 conference, held in Turkey’s Antalya only two days after the mass killings.

The atrocity was claimed by the Islamic State terror network (also known as ISIS or ISIL), with seven of its operatives killed in the suicide attacks. Days later, the conclusion by Russian investigators this week that a terrorist bomb was the cause of the

Russian civilian airliner crash on October 31 over Egypt’s Sinai desert – with the loss of all 224 people onboard – has only added to the grim public realisation about ISIL and its affiliates. French President Francois Hollande – who skipped the G20 summit due to the emergency situation unfolding at home – appealed this week for a “global coalition to defeat Islamic State”.

This was made during a special address to both upper and lower houses of the French parliament at the Palace of Versailles. The French leader called on the US and Russia to join forces, along with France and other countries. Hollande is to fly to Washington on November 24 to discuss with Obama how to coordinate efforts at combating ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Two days after that, the

French president is due in Moscow to hold the same discussion with Putin. Putin has already acknowledged the appeal from Hollande, saying that he welcomes closer cooperation, adding that Russia has been consistently calling for a greater joint effort in combating terrorism.

Putin has even reportedly offered Russian naval coordination with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the eastern Mediterranean for future airstrikes against ISIL. Within days of the Paris massacre, French warplanes launched extensive strikes against Islamic State bases in eastern Syria.

Russia and its Syrian ally have pointed out that previous military strikes by the US and France are in violation of international law since these operations do not have consent from the government in Damascus. It remains to be seen then how Russia would coordinate military operations with France in Syria owing to the legal implications.

Since the Paris mayhem, several French political figures and former military intelligence personnel have urged Hollande to re-think policy on Syria.

Opposition leader Nicolas Sarkozy, among others, said that “to not coordinate with Russia is absurd”. A think-tank, CF2R, with close links to French military intelligence, also advised the Hollande government to view the Syrian leader not as the enemy, and to dedicate efforts, in conjunction with Russia, on destroying the ISIL and related groups.

In other words, Russia is being proven right about its intervention in Syria. The most effective way to defeat the terror networks of ISIL and other jihadist groups like the Nusra Front is to support the Syrian state, to coordinate with the Syrian Arab Army on the ground, and to target the militants with a full-on campaign.

That is why Putin was received at the G20 summit with a newfound respect among other leaders. When Putin ordered the Russian military intervention in Syria, beginning on September 30, it was not done in half-measures. In a matter of weeks, the Russian air force has achieved more in terms of wiping out terror groups than the US-led coalition did in more than a year of airstrikes.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted in an interview this week that the US-led bombing supposedly against the Islamic State has been ineffective due to its conflicting priorities. Lavrov said that since August 2014, the Western so-called anti-ISIL coalition was focused on “weakening” the Damascus government and therefore it did not strike decisively at ISIL formations because they are seen as assets in the Western effort for regime change.

Some analysts go further and argue that the Islamic State and associated jihadist mercenaries are the result of covert Western sponsorship of these groups.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf Arab states are also known to have been major funders and facilitators of the jihadist brigades. Putin highlighted these links at the G20 summit when he announced that the financing of the terror networks in Syria has come from “40 states, including members of the G20”.

Thus, while Russia has been vindicated in its strategy and tactics on Syria, the appeal for a “global coalition” against terror has intrinsic limits. This is because key Western powers and their regional allies are committed in principle against such a Russian-defined front.

The United States, Britain and France are among those states insisting that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has to relinquish power, sooner or later. Russia rejects that demand as a violation of Syrian sovereignty.

These Western states are also known to have supplied weapons, at least indirectly, to the jihadist terror groups.

British leader David Cameron complained at the G20 summit that Russia has hit “non-ISIL opposition to Assad – people who could be part of the future of Syria.” But who or where are these “non-ISIL” groups that Cameron says “could be part of the future of Syria”?

When Russia has asked the West for information and locations on “moderate rebels” to avoid in its airstrikes, the West has refused to provide any details.

France is as guilty as any other of the foreign states for fuelling a covert war in Syria that has spawned the terror problem of Islamic State and its affiliates. A problem that has, in turn, rebounded with horrific results outside of Syria’s borders, killing hundreds of French and Russian citizens in only the past three weeks.

Vladimir Putin has demonstrated true leadership on tackling terrorism in Syria and beyond. As the old English proverb goes: cometh the hour, cometh the man.

However, the more troubling problem is this: how many other statesmen are ready and willing to do the decent thing and follow the Russian lead? Russia’s policy on Syria is the morally and legally correct one.

The Paris and Russian airliner massacres, as well as other recent terrorist atrocities in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and other countries, cry out for a real anti-terror effort based on respecting sovereignty and abiding by international law.

That challenge will expose those states that have built their policies on Syria out of deeply criminal objectives and methods.

Source: www.informationclearinghouse.info