Τετάρτη, 3 Αυγούστου 2016

Το Χαλιφάτο με τα Πυρηνικά Όπλα

Πολύ ωραίο άρθρο του αντι-Ισλαμικού Frontpage Mag για το χαλιφάτο με τα πυρηνικά όπλα, την Τουρκία, στην βάση Incirlik της οποίας βρίσκονται 50 πυρηνικές κεφαλές των ΗΠΑ. Το άρθρο αναρωτιέται αν οι ΗΠΑ θα τολμήσουν να κάνουν κάτι σε περίπτωση που ο Ερντογάν τολμήσει να δημεύσει αυτές τις πυρηνικές κεφαλές. Να πω εγώ ότι στην Τουρκία κυκλοφορούν φήμες, προφανώς από τον Ερντογάν, ότι το πραξικόπημα σχεδιάστηκε από τους Αμερικανούς στο Incirlik.



Το άρθρο γράφει ότι μετά την ήττα στον Α Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο καταστράφηκε το τελευταίο Χαλιφάτο, και ο Κεμάλ Αττατούρκ διέλυσε ότι απέμεινε από αυτό, και έκανε την Τουρκία κοσμικό κράτος στις αρχές τις δεκαετίας του 20.

Στα τέλη της δεκαετίας του 20 δημιουργήθηκε στην Αίγυπτο η Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα, από τον Hasan al-Bana, ο σκοπός της οποίας ήταν να ανατρέψει την πολιτική του Αττατούρκ, κάτι που κατάφερε τον 100 περίπου χρόνια αργότερα ο Ερντογάν στην Τουρκία, και κάτι που κόντεψε να καταφέρει και στην Αίγυπτο ο Μοχάμεντ Μόρσι το 2012, με την υποστήριξη του Ιράν, του Κατάρ και της Τουρκίας, αλλά δεν πρόλαβε να ολοκληρώσει γιατί ανατράπηκε από τους Αιγύπτιους σοσιαλιστές στρατιωτικούς.

Στην Τουρκία όμως όλοι οι στρατιωτικοί, που ήταν αυτοί που απέτρεπαν την μετατροπή της Τουρκίας σε Χαλιφάτο με πραξικοπήματα, βρίσκονται πλέον στην φυλακή, και κανένας πλέον δεν μπορεί να σταματήσει τον Σουλτάνο, ο οποίος έχει ήδη φτιάξει για τον εαυτό του ένα παλάτι 1.000 δωματίων.

Το άρθρο αναρωτιέται ποια θα είναι η θέση του ISIS στο Χαλιφάτο του Ερντογάν, και υποστηρίζει ότι υπό προϋποθέσεις θα ήταν δυνατόν να απορροφηθεί από την Τουρκία ο ISIS, μιας και η Τουρκία ήταν αυτή που λειτουργούσε ως διοικητικό κέντρο του ISIS, αρκεί ο ISIS να εγκατέλειπε την ιδέα του Ισλαμικού Κράτους της Συρίας και του Ιράκ. Αυτό πρακτικά σημαίνει να υποταχθεί ο ISIS στην Τουρκία, και να μην κάνει τίποτα περίεργες συμμαχίες με την Σαουδική Αραβία ή με το Ιράν.

Χάρτης


Το άρθρο γράφει επίσης ότι ο ISIS θέλει να δημιουργήσει ένα Χαλιφάτο, αλλά δεν έχει τα προσόντα, ενώ η Τουρκία μπορεί να το πετύχει.

Γίνεται και αναφορά στην προσπάθεια του Ερντογάν να βάλει την Τουρκία στην ΕΕ, κάτι που για μένα εντάσσεται στα πλαίσια της αθόρυβης (δημογραφικής) Τζιχάντ που προωθεί η Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα, και αναφέρει ότι πάντα οι Οθωμανοί ονειρεύονταν να κατακτήσουν την Ευρώπη αλλά ποτέ δεν τα κατάφεραν, και δεν υπάρχει λόγος να θεωρήσουμε ότι δεν θα κάνει και ο Ερντογάν την προσπάθεια του αν του δοθεί η ευκαιρία, την στιγμή που έχει στην Ευρώπη μία πολύ ισχυρή 5η Φάλαγγα να δουλεύει για αυτόν. Προφανώς αναφέρεται στους Μουσουλμάνους και τους Κομμουνιστές.

Σε πολλούς μπορεί να φαίνονται αστεία πράγματα να καταφέρει η Τουρκία να κατακτήσει την Ευρώπη, αλλά θα πρέπει να έχετε υπόψη σας ότι η Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα είναι πάρα πολύ οργανωμένη και στις ΗΠΑ. Μην βλέπετε την Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα ως το Κατάρ, το Ιράν και την Τουρκία. Να θυμίσω ότι όταν οι Ρεπουμπλικάνοι ζήτησαν να ανακηρυχθεί η Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα τρομοκρατική οργάνωση στις ΗΠΑ ο Ομπάμα σε αντίποινα πήγε σε ένα τζαμί που είχε στο παρελθόν συσχετιστεί με την τρομοκρατία και την Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα.

Επίσης, ο Ομπάμα είναι Μουσουλμανικής καταγωγής Αμερικανός, είναι ο πρόεδρος που είπε ότι ο ρατσισμός είναι στο DNA των Αμερικανών, είναι ο πρόεδρος που πήγε και έβγαλε φωτογραφία μπροστά στην εικόνα του Τσε Γκεβάρα, ενός από γνωστότερους και πιο άγριους κομμουνιστές δολοφόνους όλων των εποχών.

Ο Ομπάμα είναι αυτός που πήγε στον Φιντέλ Κάστρο, την στιγμή που υπάρχει η συμμαχία της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας με τους Κομμουνιστές δικτάτορες της Λατινικής Αμερικής (Κούβα, Βενεζουέλα, Βολιβία, Νικαράγουα), και στην οποία σε μικρότερο βαθμό συμμετέχουν η Αργεντινή και η Βραζιλία.

Εικόνα Ομπάμα-Τσε Γκεβάρα


Να θυμίσω ότι το Κατάρ, που είναι ο βασικός χρηματοδότης της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας, ενώ η Τουρκία και το Ιράν παρέχουν στρατιωτική υποστήριξη, αγόρασε το κανάλι του αντιπροέδρου του Μπιλ Κλίντον, το Current TV, για 500 εκ δολάρια, και πήγε σε πόλεμο με τον Τζορτζ Μπους όταν ο Μπους χτύπησε το Ιράκ.

Θυμάστε ότι και ο Τσίπρας και ο Βαρουφάκης ήταν στην συγκέντρωση του Κλίντον, και όταν μιλάμε για ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μιλάμε οπωσδήποτε για Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα (Ιράν, Κατάρ, Τουρκία) και κομμουνιστές δικτάτορες της Λατινικής Αμερικής (Βενεζουέλα, Κούβα κλπ).

Βλέπετε στην Ελλάδα το Συριζαριό των Ελληνικών ΜΜΕ πως χαλάει τον κόσμο για τον Ομπάμα. Δυστυχώς τα χρεοκοπημένα Ελληνικά κανάλια παραδοσιακά χρηματοδοτούνται από κρατική διαφήμιση, και πλέον πιέζονται από τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και τις τράπεζες, χρηματοδοτούνται από επιχειρηματίες που συνεργάζονται με το Ιράν, το Κατάρ και την Τουρκία, χώρες που ανακατεύονται σε κανάλια διεφθαρμένων χωρών, και είναι υποχρεωμένα να προσλαμβάνουν δημοσιογράφους που προωθούν την προπαγάνδα της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας και των κομμουνιστών δικτατόρων της Λατινικής Αμερικής.

Μην σας κάνει δηλαδή εντύπωση που οι δημοσιογράφοι των Ελληνικών ΜΜΕ είναι σαν να τους γέννησε η ίδια μάνα. Είναι παρακαταθήκη του Ανδρέα Παπανδρέου, αλλά πλέον και οι χρηματοδοτήσεις που μπορούν να βρουν τα κανάλια είναι από χώρες που θα απαιτήσουν Ισλαμιστές δημοσιογράφους για να χρηματοδοτούν. Άντε να βρεθεί και καμία χρηματοδότηση από Ρωσία.

Θέλω να πω ότι δεν πρέπει να τα βλέπετε όλα αυτά σαν θεωρίες συνωμοσίας, και να έχετε στο μυαλό σας ότι οι ΗΠΑ έχουν πάρα πολύ ισχυρό πλαίσιο, και δεν μπορεί ο πρόεδρος να κάνει ότι του γουστάρει. Ο πρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ ελέγχεται από το Κογκρέσο, ελέγχεται από την δικαστική εξουσία, ελέγχεται από 15 μεριές.

Μην βλέπετε την πολιτική των ΗΠΑ ως το αποτέλεσμα μόνο της πολιτικής του Ομπάμα. Οι ΗΠΑ δεν είναι το μπουρδελάκι που είμαστε εμείς να μπορεί να βγαίνει ο Πολάκης και να λέει ότι πρέπει να αγνοηθεί η δικαιοσύνη κλπ. Η Αμερική υπήρξε καπιταλιστική χώρα κάποτε, και ακόμη και στο τελείωμα του καπιταλισμού τον 21ο αιώνα υπάρχουν ισχυρή θεσμοί ως κατάλοιπα του καπιταλιστικού παρελθόντος της, και ενδεχομένως πια να ξηλωθούν σιγά σιγά τον 21ο αιώνα.

Η μεγάλη παραγωγή πετρελαίου και αερίου των ΗΠΑ αυξάνει την πιθανότητα του resource curse και στις ΗΠΑ, της κατάρας των φυσικών πόρων, που σημαίνει ότι μπορεί να βρεθεί μία πολιτική νομενκλατούρα που θα κάνει δικτατορία και θα νέμεται αυτούς τους πόρους, μία κατάρα που με τόσο άγριο τρόπο έχει κυνηγήσει την Ρωσία. Αλλά θα χρειαστεί καιρός για να ξηλωθεί το θεσμικό πλαίσιο των ΗΠΑ.

Ο λόγος που η Γερμανία έχει τόσο πιο αναπτυγμένη δημοκρατία από την Ρωσία είναι επειδή οι Γερμανοί δεν είχαν φυσικούς πόρους, και έπρεπε να αναπτύξουν μία οικονομία που θα εισήγαγε πρώτες ύλες και θα τις εξήγαγε σε κάτι καλύτερο, και τέτοιες ικανότητες μία χώρα αναπτύσσει μόνο με μία καπιταλιστική οικονομία.

Όταν ο Χίτλερ πήρε την εξουσία ακολούθησε την στρατηγική των σοσιαλιστών ηγετών, και προσπάθησε να δημιουργήσει μία αυτοκρατορία ώστε να συμπεριλάβει τους φυσικούς πόρους άλλων χωρών τους οποίους θα νέμονταν η ναζιστική πολιτική νομενκλατούρα, ώστε να λειτουργήσει όπως λειτουργούν οι νομενκλατούρες των χωρών με τις πλούσιες πρώτες ύλες. Η καταπληκτική βιομηχανία της ναζιστικής Γερμανίας δεν ήταν προιόν των ναζί αλλά ερχόταν από το καπιταλιστικό παρελθόν της Γερμανίας. Μετά την ήττα ων Ναζί ο Στάλιν ξήλωσε τα Γερμανικά εργοστάσια και τα μετέφερε στην Ρωσία.

Βλέπετε ότι ακόμη και η Κίνα, μία χώρα που δεν είναι πλούσια σε πρώτες ύλες, αναγκάζεται να αλλάξει το οικονομικό της μοντέλο σιγά σιγά.

Τέλος πάντων όμως, ξέφυγα, το θέμα είναι ότι δεν πρέπει να βλέπετε την Τουρκία μόνη της, αλλά στα πλαίσια της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας, που είναι πάρα πολύ ισχυρή και στις ΗΠΑ.

Εικόνα


Για την σχέση του Ομπάμα με την Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα βλέπε και το άρθρο του National Review, ενός πολύ γνωστού κεντροδεξιού Αμερικανικού περιοδικού των ΗΠΑ. “Obama anti-Terrorist Terrorist”, Ιούνιος 2016

Για να μην νομίζει δηλαδή ότι τα βγάζω αυτά από το κεφάλι μου. Σκεφτείτε ότι την Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα την χρηματοδοτεί το Κατάρ, και υπάρχει στην μέση το φυσικό αέριο του Κατάρ, που το Κατάρ προσπαθεί να πείσει τις ΗΠΑ να προωθήσουν. Τώρα όμως υπάρχει και το φυσικό αέριο των ΗΠΑ που λειτουργεί ανταγωνιστικά στο αέριο του Κατάρ, και γίνεται το έλα να δεις. Τέλος πάντων. Το θέμα είναι όταν μιλάμε για Χαλιφάτο να μην σκέφτεστε μόνο την Τουρκία. Να σκέφτεστε ότι η Μουσουλμανική Αδελφότητα έχει μεγάλη δύναμη και στις ΗΠΑ. Στις ΗΠΑ μπορεί να μην έχει πολλούς Μουσουλμάνους, αλλά έχουν τους κομμουνιστές, και προσπαθούν να πάρουν και τους μαύρους Αμερικανούς με το μέρος τους.

“Obama anti-Terrorist Terrorist”, Ιούνιος 2016
arack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror. Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the woolly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism. These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be. I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security. To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in. Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates. For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs. Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law. As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists: (1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences. (2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq). (3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable). (4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.” The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture. Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals. This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world. Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.” As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted. The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find. On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability. The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical. Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists. Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies. Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits: First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations. Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge. There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism. That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become.

“A NUCLEAR-ARMED CALIPHATE?”, Αύγουστος 2016
Much has been made of the Islamic State’s claim to the caliphate. But the Islamic State is fast losing ground in Syria and Iraq, and without a territorial claim, its claim to the caliphate is a shaky one. According to some sources, ISIS has already been preparing its followers for the fall of the caliphate.
Meanwhile, an Islamist power with a much better claim to the caliphate has been gathering strength. Whether the failed coup in Turkey was the real thing or whether it was staged, as some have claimed, President Erdogan’s hold over the Turkish nation has been immeasurably strengthened. As a result, he is now one giant step closer to doing what, some say, he has always wanted to do—namely, to re-establish the caliphate.
The last time the Muslim world had a caliphate, it was centered in Constantinople. The Turkish sultan (who was also the caliph) was the head of the Ottoman Empire—an empire that controlled far more territory than ISIS does or is ever likely to. Then in 1923, following the disarray left by the First World War, a secular government under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk came to power in Turkey and abolished the caliphate soon after.
To many in the Muslim world, this was a world-changing catastrophe. It flew in the face of Muhammad’s intention that mosque and state should be united, and it undermined the case for Islamic law. Moreover, the overthrow of the caliphate affected not just Turkey, but all of the Muslim world. In the late 1920s in Egypt, Hasan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood with the intention of reversing what Ataturk had done. The Brotherhood came close to doing this–at least in Egypt—in 2012 with the election of Mohamed Morsi as president. But Morsi showed his hand too early and was soon deposed by the military under General El-Sisi.
In Turkey, also, it was the military that acted as the guardian of the secular state. And so it remained until the election of President Recep Erdogan in 2002. Even then, Erdogan moved slowly in his efforts to re-Islamize Turkey. He gradually removed top military officers and replaced them with his own men; and he did the same with the police, the judiciary, and other key institutions.
By 2012, some twenty percent of the country’s generals were estimated to be behind bars. Then, with this month’s failed coup, Erdogan moved quickly to arrest some 3,000 members of the military and 3,000 members of the judiciary. In addition, his regime sacked 9,000 workers attached to the Interior Ministry. Within a week of the attempted coup, some 50,000 soldiers, police, judges, civil servants, and teachers had been suspended or arrested.
Erdogan’s power is now nearly absolute—not unlike the absolute power of a sultan. According to some, this has been his goal all along. One indication is that Erdogan has built himself a thousand-room presidential palacethat is attended by guards dressed in Ottoman-era uniforms.
If Erdogan does try to establish a caliphate, where does that leave ISIS? Would they go quietly into the dark night of oblivion? Or would they find a place in the new caliphate?
As you may have noticed, alliances in the Middle East are constantly shifting. It’s not inconceivable that ISIS would someday pledge allegiance to a neo-Ottoman caliphate—although such an event might have to be preceded by the demise of their current caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The truth is, Erdogan has been something of a friend and benefactor of ISIS. As Caroline Glick observed in the Jerusalem Post:
Erdogan has turned a blind eye to al-Qaida. And he has permitted ISIS to use Turkey as its logistical base, economic headquarters, and recruitment center. Earlier this year, the State Department claimed that all of the 25,000 foreign recruits to ISIS have entered Syria through Turkey.
Turkey is also the gateway between Syria and Europe. It is through Turkey that the bulk of Muslim migrants flow into Europe. This gives Erdogan enormous leverage over the future of Europe—a continent which is already reeling from a flood of migrants and refugees. How is the leverage applied? In March, the European Union reached a deal with Turkey that would in essence turn Turkey into a buffer zone against further immigration. Here’s how Foreign Affairs summarized the bargain:
Turkey has agreed to act as a giant refugee holding center, keeping the millions of migrants fleeing conflict in the Middle East from reaching Europe and accepting those sent back from Greece. In exchange, the EU will pay Turkey three billion euros on top of the three billion pledged last November to help care for the refugees. It will also speed up the approval of visa-free travel to Europe for Turkish citizens and revive stalled negotiations over Turkey’s accession to the EU.
So Turkey will keep the Syrian migrants out of Europe as long as Turkish citizens are allowed almost unlimited access to Europe through visa-free travel. The net result is that the Islamization of Europe will continue. And, of course, there’s nothing to stop Turkey from opening up the refugee floodgate whenever it sees fit. Turkey’s control of Mid-East migration gives it the upper hand in its dealings with Europe.
The other part of the bargain is the revival of negotiations to admit Turkey to the EU. If Turkey is ever successful in that endeavor, it would spell game-over for Europe. If Erdogan wants to re-establish the caliphate, and if he is so keen on union with Europe, it is likely that he envisions Europe as part of the future caliphate. This is something that the Ottoman sultans dreamed of, but were never able to accomplish. But Erdogan might be able to pull it off. There is now a very large contingent of Turks in Germany who seem to bear more allegiance to him than to Germany. And all over Europe there exists a fifth column of active and potential Islamists ready to be activated. As for the other four columns, it’s worth keeping in mind that Turkey has the second largest army in NATO (the U.S. has the largest). And with many of the generals who coordinated with NATO now in jail, Turkey’s loyalty to NATO is very much in question.
There is one other factor to consider. During and after the coup attempt, Erdogan shut down Incirlik Air Base, which is home to 1,500 American soldiers as well as other NATO troops. The Turkish government cut off the base’s electricity supply, temporarily suspended flights, and arrested the base commander, General Ercan Van. The base reportedly houses 50 nuclear warheads. The bombs are controlled by the U.S. forces in Turkey, but could they by means sudden or gradual fall under the control of Turkey? And if they did, would the U.S. dare to do anything about it?
By many accounts, Erdogan is a true believer who, in his own way, is every bit as fanatical as the ayatollahs in Iran. The man who built a thousand-room palace for himself might well believe that a restored caliphate should possess all the weapons that befit a great world power. With Erdogan’s latest consolidation of power, an already dangerous world just became a lot more dangerous.

“OBAMA AT MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-LINKED MOSQUE: “MUSLIM AMERICANS KEEP US SAFE”, Φεβρουάριος 2016
When Barack Obama visited the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, he said: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.”
While Obama has been President, Muslims have murdered non-Muslims, avowedly in the cause of Islam, at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and attempted to do so in many, many other places. Imagine if armed Baptists screaming “Jesus is Lord” had committed murder, and explained that they were doing so in order to advance Christianity, in four American cities, and had attempted to do so in many others. Imagine that those killers were supporters of a global Christian movement that had repeatedly called for attacks on U.S. civilians and declared its determination to destroy the United States.
Imagine how incongruous it would be in that case for the President of the United States to visit a church and say: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Christian Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.” And imagine how unlikely it would be that Barack Obama would ever have done that.
But his visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore was the apotheosis of the Muslim victimhood myth, as he signaled yet again to the world (and worldwide jihadis) that in the U.S., Muslims are victims, victims of unwarranted concern over jihad terror, and thus that concern is likely to lessen even more, as Obama dismantles still more of our counter-terror apparatus.
“We’ve seen children bullied, we’ve seen mosques vandalized,” Obama claimed. “It’s not who we are. We’re one American family. And when any part of our family begins to feel separate or second class, it tears at the heart of our nation” – he said to his gender-segregated Muslim audience, with the womensitting in the back. In reality, Muslims are not victimized in American society: FBI hate crime statistics show that the hysteria over “Islamophobia” is unfounded, but that matters not at all to Barack Obama. At the mosque, he said: “If we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country — we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths.”
Once again Obama felt free to scold and admonish Christians, but said nothing about Muslims in the U.S. needing to clean house and work for real reform that would mitigate jihad terror. And his premise was false: there is no attempt to restrict Muslims’ freedom of religion. Donald Trump hasn’t called for that; nor has Ben Carson or any serious analyst. But the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (a representative of which accompanied Obama to the mosque Wednesday) and other Islamic advocacy groups have consistently charged that counter-terror efforts and attempts to restrict the political, supremacist and authoritarian aspects of Sharia that are at variance with Constitutional principles were tantamount to restricting Muslims’ religious freedom.
Now the President of the United States has endorsed their false narrative, which will only further stigmatize initiatives to understand the jihadis’ ideology and counter it effectively. He further criticized those who dare to suggest that Islam might have something to do with Islamic terrorism by criticizing those who say that the U.S. is at war with Islam: “That kind of mind-set helps our enemies,” he intoned. “It helps our enemies recruit. It makes us all less safe.”
The U.S. certainly isn’t at war with Islam, but segments of the Islamic world are at war with the U.S., and Obama did not explain what might be done to counter the beliefs that have given rise to that idea. He is, of course, against studying the beliefs of the enemy. Yet he said proudly: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Qur’an,” without bothering to mention that they had them in order to understand the ideology of the enemy the new nation faced in the Barbary Pirates. They held, of course, the same ideology he ignores and denies today, the one he ordered all traces of removed from counterterror training.
“Islam,” Obama declared, “has always been part of America.” Really? There were Muslims at Jamestown? In the Massachusetts Bay Colony? At Roanoke? Obama’s statement is so wildly ridiculous that it doesn’t just invite parody; it pleads for it. Remember the Muslims among the Founding Fathers, Yahya al-Adams and Iskandar Hamilton? Remember the Muslims who told James Madison about Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina so that he could lay out the foundations of a republic in the U.S. Constitution? Remember the Muslims who fought so valiantly in the Revolutionary Jihad, and the Jihad of 1812, and the Mexican Jihad, and the Civil War, aka the Jihad Between the Caliphates? Remember all the controversies about whether Muslim soldiers in the Civil War could make sex slaves out of the wives and daughters of Confederate commanders? The jihad suicide attacks that broke the Germans’ will to fight on during World War I?
Burrowing deeper into fantasy, Obama proclaimed: “Generations of Muslim Americans helped to build our nation.” He didn’t mention the real contributions Muslims have made to our nation: you know, like rearranging the New York skyline, transforming government buildings into grim, nervous fortresses, making air travel into exercise in annoyance and humiliation that it is today, and draining the American economy with two futile wars and hundreds of billions spent on security and counterterror initiatives.
In detailing the contributions that Muslims have made to the U.S., Obama said: “Muslim Americans keep up safe. They are our police. They are our fire fighters. They’re in (the Department of) Homeland Security.” And remember: none of them were screened for jihadi sympathies. To have done so would have been “Islamophobic,” and transgressed against the prevailing dogma that Islam is a Religion of Peace that non-Muslims are wrong and bigoted to be concerned about.
The most ominous thing Obama said in this speech full of treacle and humbug was this: “We’re not going to strengthen our leadership around the world by allowing politicians to insult Muslims or pit groups of Americans against each other. That’s not who we are. That’s not keeping America safe.” So what is he going to do? Destroy the First Amendment and disallow politicians to insult Muslims?
Obama decried “phony tough talk and bluster and over-the-top claims.” Yet in the final analysis, that was all he offered.

“OBAMA: RACISM IS IN AMERICA'S DNA”

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like accusing racism of being in someone's DNA is itself racist. But the left would insist that making racist comments about white people is really social justice while complaining about them is racist.
Anyway Obama gave an interview to an insufferable hipster in which he insisted that the DMV was defined by slavery.
“The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, that casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.”
Every institution?
The 7-11 on the block? The DMV? The White House?
How exactly does an institution that only existed in a handful of states define the whole nation for all time? How does Jim Crow define the educational system in Hawaii? How has slavery influenced Seattle?
But we're not supposed to ask questions like that. This is about collective guilt for personal power.
We're supposed to hang out heads in shame at the way that Jim Crow still influences the Long Island Railroad and Starbucks and cede all possible power to Obama to transform the nation in the hopes that he can rid us of an original sin that Africa and the Middle East still practice. (That long shadow hangs over Africa and the Middle East where slavery is still practiced far more than it does Iowa or Alaska.)
The real long shadow is the lefty exploitation of racism for political power. Obama knows quite a lot about that.



1 σχόλιο:

  1. Αν μιλάμε για το τέλος του καπιταλισμού τον 21ο αιώνα, τότε τί πρόκειται να τον διαδεχτεί?

    ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή