Yusuf emerged from an Audi, witnesses told reporters, took out an automatic rifle and fired six shots at police before hiding behind a truck. When he fled, French police shot him dead. French President Francois Holland’s suspicions of a terrorism were confirmed when ISIS claimed one of their fighters was responsible. The killing of the officer was at least the sixth Islamic terrorist attack in Paris during the last three years.
“Timing is everything,” it is said, because this attack came just two days before a critical French vote where Marine Le Pen — a proponent of leaving the EU, not a friend to mass migration and a strident supporter of French sovereignty — is vying to become the 25th president of France following François Hollande.
Outsiders Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen sweep to victory as France kicks out old guard: Europhile newcomer narrowly wins first vote to take on far-Right’s Madame Frexit for the presidency
Far-right leader Marine Le Pen and independent centrist Emmanuel Macron have made it to the second round
36.7million voted, a turnout of 78.2 per cent; Macron won 23.9 per cent of the vote, Le Pen 21.4
Republican candidate Francois Fillon conceded after initial results showed he achieved 19.5 per cent of vote
Far-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon refused to concede until final results of first-round vote announced
France’s Prime Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, has called on voters to support Macron instead of Le Pen
This is the first time in 60 years none of France’s mainstream parties have entered the second round
Riots broke out in Nantes and Paris’ Place de la Bastille – the birthplace of the French Revolution
As illustrated above, the election was stunning insofar as it appears to somewhat replicate what happened last November in the US. “This is the first time in 60 years none of France’s mainstream parties have entered the second round.” And: riots broke out after the voting.
French voters turned their backs on the political establishment last night in round one of the presidential election.
Emmanuel Macron – an independent centrist – won first place ahead of National Front leader Marine Le Pen.
The result will have major implications for Britain and its departure from the EU.
Miss Le Pen wants to completely renegotiate France’s relationship with Brussels while Mr Macron wants closer links.
In essence what occurred is this: voters completely held moderation at arms’ length and instead went for polarity.
According to France’s Interior Ministry, 46 million people voted in the first stage of the elections which knocked the traditional Right and Left parties out of the running for the first time in 60 years.
With 97 per cent of the vote counted, Macron achieved 23.9 per cent, followed by Le Pen on 21.4. A total of 36.7million voted, a turnout of 78.2 per cent.
But it is thought that Le Pen’s chances of winning the second round are limited as supporters for Republican candidate Francois Fillon, who conceded but has gained 19.9 per cent of the votes, will support Macron.
The next round of elections, a face-off between Le Pen and Macron, will occur on Sunday, May 7th.
What’s at stake is nothing less than the very existence of the entire European Union and the survival of Western civilization in Europe. I fear this is no overstatement in the slightest.
A continuation of France’s current policies regarding Islam are capitulist in nature as are the policies of the EU in general. Terror attacks will continue and the erosion of secularism, much less any other form of religion save Islam will be unabated. Demography will become prophecy and more French citizens will continue to be killed because of a weak French state. Muslims will push for more and greater rights to the exclusion of French law and the encroaching systemic demand for Sharia law.
Simultaneously the EU will be further weakened and its various cultures eroded whilst their streets will continue to burn and its citizens will continue to be killed at the hands of Islamists.
That said, I believe that the UK will continue with Brexit and — luckily for the UK — geography is such that the English Channel separates it from the rest of Europe, as the Atlantic luckily separate us from Europe and other continents. Sharing a border with Mexico is sufficiently corrosive, thank you.
May 7th will be a pivotal point for France and the European Union.
U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base Over Chemical Weapons Attack
by Kourtney Kube, Alex Johnson, Hallie Jackson, Alexander Smith
The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people.
At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in Homs.
All but one of the missiles hit their intended target, one U.S. military official told NBC News. The other missile failed.
The strike completed a policy reversal for President Donald Trump — who once warned America to stay out of the conflict — and drew angry responses from Damascus and its main ally, Russia.
Half truth. Again the American Media Maggots are either purposely misleading you, or are ignorant, or both. Syria has two very important allies: Iran and Russia.
The missiles were launched from the USS Ross and the USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea toward Shayrat Airfield. American officials believe it was used by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad to carry out a strike on Tuesday involving chemical weapons that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people.
“We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and we also have very high confidence that the attacks involved the use of sarin nerve gas,” Tillerson said.
This is not an uncomplicated situation and the players are many and ever-changing.
The truth is this: we didn’t necessarily target the airfield; we instead targeted aircraft, their hardened shelters and fueling stations. A point. One Tomahawk malfunctioned and spent itself into the sea. Funny thing: the US Navy wants to stop buying Tomahawks in the next few years (to the tune of $1.4 million dollars each). The USN, by the way, has 4,000 Tomahawk missiles, built by Raytheon.
The confusing aspect of President Trump’s action is its reaction from the Republicans, the Demorats, Trump voters and military analysts. It’s all over the map. Many reactions are not what one would nominally expect.
Some people feel betrayal because President Trump has said he is not the “president of the world.” On the heels of that statement he has intervened in Syria; his first military response.
Not anticipated by me was the response by the American Media Maggots. Many outlets praised the attack.
But wait. Aren’t these the same American Media Maggots who have been screeching from the tallest towers that President Trump was a stooge for Russia and Vladimir Putin? It doesn’t seem to me that Moscow would be pleased with the attack and, of course, it wasn’t. Wait; doesn’t Moscow = Putin?
The AMM said this about those who opposed it:
Politico.com called those opposed to the attack “Trump’s troll army” and “racists” and “conspiracy mongers”;
The New York Times called oppo members a “small but influential white nationalist movement”;
The Washington Post said the attack’s critics hold “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist” views;
Again, I can sum up those articles best by quoting Monty Python: “you’re a loon.”
Speaking of which, as I mentioned, there were those who continued to insist on making the linkage between President Trump and Russia despite the total lack of evidence and subsequent denial from US intelligence agencies. Our good “you’re a loon” buddy Lawrence O’Donnell weighs in with a Moonbat Theory: what if Vladimir Putin planned the Syrian gas attack in order to assist his great friend, President Donald Trump?
Fear not, for we not only have a civilian Trump/Russia conspiracist, but an elected government official as a Trump/Russia conspiracist, Representative Seth Moulton (6th District, Massachusetts) spoke with Tucker Carlson Monday night.
An elected representative saying something like this is akin to Rep Hank Johnson saying that Guam could capsize because of extra weight.
There are those, however, who believe the attack was illegal as no declaration of war was made by Congress. This is patently false. I remind folks of the fact that Obama operated that way for, literally, all eight years of his regime and was never told he required Congressional approval for the drone and missile strikes he ordered. Even Left-leaning PolitiFact stated that Trump had the authority to conduct his strike under Article 2 of the US Constitution.
Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.
Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that po
Some said President Trump should have come before Congress and made his case in public. One thing we do know about Trump is this: he doesn’t much care to advertise coming actions. Logically so, in terms of military strategy.
These are the same people, interestingly enough, who said President Bush’s movement into Iraq was fallacious and that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMD materials despite the fact that an article in the New York Times indicated the opposite. An article in PowerLine also supported the conclusion of the Times.
Further, some said that Saddam Hussein moved his WMD materials prior to the invasion and had them transported to Syria. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz believed so in 2003. Somehow I think people now more clearly understand that nexus.
But wait; wasn’t it Susan Rice and John Kerry who unequivocally declared that because of the tireless work they did to eliminate all chemical weapons from Syria under Barack Hussein Obama, “the entirety of the declared stockpile was removed.”
Hmm. It would appear Susan Rice lied about Benghazi. She lied about Bowe Bergdahl, that he had served with “honor and distinction.” She lied about the unmasking of names. And apparently she lied about the chemical stockpile in Syria. Here she is in an NPR interview, January 16th.
I’m of the mindset that if Susan Rice stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow morning, I’d be suspicious.
Many people consistently bleat that political solutions and diplomatic negotiations must occur when potential conflicts arise. Like the prior administration and its occupants and sycophants. The problem with that theory is that none of it can exist absent military credibility.
The US needed to re-establish military credibility in the Middle East, lost as it was under the previous eight years under Barack Hussein Obama, and Trump demonstrated that credibility with that Syrian strike. He also set forth the doctrine that the words of a US president now have consequences.
John Kerry and Susan Rice under Obama became absolutely convinced that Assad had surrendered all of his chemical weapons which, clearly, he hadn’t. Even PolitiFact has revised and retracted its insistence that the US removed “100%” of Syria’s chemical weapons. The meme then was:
“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” then-Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2014. Kerry was referring to a deal the U.S. and Russia struck in September 2013 in which the Russians agreed to help confiscate and then destroy Syria’s entire chemical weapons stockpile.
Some people are insisting it was a false flag event. Like VA Senator Richard Black.
Will President Bashar Al-Assad gas his people again? We know he could, as he clearly has access to chemical agents despite the claim that more than 1,300 to 1,400 tons of it had been eliminated. We also know that Al-Assad’s Syrian military is hurting. He hasn’t much of an air force remaining to speak of, his army pretty much doesn’t exist, and that accounts for his need for mercenaries and conscripts from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq — primarily because Syrians won’t fight for him.
Let’s not forget, however, that Al-Assad does have Iran working for him. He has the support of the Quds force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards corps, Hezbollah and Russia, who stepped into Syria two years ago under the guise of fighting ISIS.
Concurrently, a contrasting article from The Atlantic by Tom Malinowski stated:
America Should Have Hit Assad Four Years Ago
When dealing with mass killing, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.
Donald Trump is president; he now bears full responsibility for addressing the tragedy in Syria, and for the consequences of the response he has chosen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reflect on America’s response to the Assad regime’s previous chemical weapons attacks—for how we interpret the difficult and debatable choice the Obama administration (in which I served) made not to use military force when Assad last used nerve gas against his people will shape our thinking about this and similar crises for a long time to come. The lesson I would draw from that experience is that when dealing with mass killing by unconventional or conventional means, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.
An earth-shaking conclusion from a Leftist.
Now let’s get into the weeds. The weeds that need to be examined, and the weeds that western media and the American Media Maggots refuse to appraise.
That of the involvement of the Middle Eastern version of Islam itself. You cannot understand Islam until you understand the two most fundamental divisions in Islam. And why this Islamic quote is accurate:
Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the tribe. Me and my brother and my cousin and my tribe against the outsider.
Let’s state the obvious:
Islam breaks itself down into two distinct camps: Sunni vs Shite.
What are the fundamental yet apparently unrecoverable differences between the two camps?
As clearly explained as I could make. Yet it’s all worth dying for.
Books I continue to highly recommend regarding the Middle Eastern version of Islam, are
Why Tehran hates Isis: how religious rifts are fueling conflict
The alliance between Iran and Syria might seem an unlikely one. As Iran is an Islamic republic, one might not expect its closest ally to be a dictatorship that grew out of the political doctrine of Baathism, a secular Arab nationalist movement that originated in the 1930s and 1940s. But politics – and perhaps especially the politics of relations between states – develops its own logic, which often has little to do with ideology. Baathism advocated Arab unity but two of its founding fathers, Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi, both Syrians, disliked each other and would not be members of the same party.
Projects to fuse Syria and Egypt and, later, Syria and Iraq foundered, creating in the latter case a personal bitterness between Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez, and Saddam Hussein, though both were Baathists, at least nominally. That led to the two states breaking off diplomatic relations with each other at the end of 1979. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, Syria and Iran became allies against Iraq. Syria cut off an oil pipeline that had allowed Iraq to export its oil from a Mediterranean port and Iran supplied Syria with cheap oil.
Stop. Do you see some things more clearly?
The Middle Eastern version of Islam, as practiced, is founded in barbarity, cruelty, nomads, bedouins. They do not recognize the lines as ascribed to their countries by western civilizations. Iranians are Persians. They are not Arabs. Never confuse a Persian with an Arab. Both will slit your carotid for doing so.
Then there is another distinguishing element to be revealed.
Even within Syria there are divisions within divisions, wheels within wheels. From the ThoughtCo.com:
The Difference Between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria
by Primoz Manfreda
Why is there Sunni-Alawite tension in Syria?
The differences between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria have sharpened dangerously since the beginning of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, whose family is Alawite. The reason for tension is primarily political, rather than religious: top position in Assad’s army are held by Alawite officers, while most of the rebels from the Free Syrian Army come from Syria’s Sunni majority.
Sufficiently confused yet?
Geographical Presence: Alawites are a Muslim minority group that accounts for around 12% of Syria’s population, with a few small pockets in Lebanon and Turkey (though not to be confused with Alevis, a Turkish Muslim minority). Around 70% of Syrians belongs to Sunni Islam, as does almost 90% of all Muslims in the world).
Historical Alawite heartlands lie in the mountainous hinterland of Syria’s Mediterranean coast in the country’s west, next to the coastal city of Latakia. Alawites form the majority in Latakia province, although the city itself is mixed between Sunnis, Alawites and Christians. Alawites also have a sizeable presence in the central province of Homs and in the capital Damascus.
Doctrinal Differences: Alawites practice a unique but little known form of Islam that dates back to the 9th and 10th century. Its secretive nature is an outcome of centuries of isolation from the mainstream society and periodical persecution by the Sunni majority.
BAGHDAD — Whether a person is a Shiite or a Sunni Muslim in Iraq can now be, quite literally, a matter of life and death.
As the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has seized vast territories in western and northern Iraq, there have been frequent accounts of fighters’ capturing groups of people and releasing the Sunnis while the Shiites are singled out for execution.
ISIS believes that the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam. The two main branches of Islam diverge in their beliefs over who is the true inheritor of the mantle of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shiites believe that Islam was transmitted through the household of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis believe that it comes down through followers of the Prophet Muhammad who, they say, are his chosen people.
This isn’t a matter of the “big picture” like the previous administration. Things now get down to very specific details.
But how can ISIS tell whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite? From accounts of people who survived encounters with the militants, it seems they often ask a list of questions. Here are some of them:
What is your name?
Where do you live?
How do you pray?
What kind of music do you listen to?
Back to reality. During President Trump’s first outright military action, let’s be honest. Not much occurred. Thousands didn’t perish. Hundreds didn’t perish. Dozens didn’t perish.
However, there occurred the customary posturing anticipated.
How about we try to do this: keep American boots from smacking Syrian dirt. Strike as necessary. Attempt to build a global consensus to give Syria back to Syrians. And then provide an incentive for Syrians in Europe to 1) go back home, and 2) not leave in the first place. That would include safe zones in Syria. Because the fewer Muslims in western countries, the easier it becomes to identify ISIS and its corruptive elements. And, well, because true Islam and Sharia is completely incongruent with western values.
But have we been duped into fighting a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, of Sunni vs Shiite?
This is President Trump’s first test, militarily. He has both pleased and displeased. Overall, to this point, I submit that he has not been found wanting.
All of that said, delineated and extrapolated, here is what I believe occurred with regard to President Trump and the Syrian missile attack. His daughter Ivanka pressed for this and, once Trump saw the photos and video of dead and injured civilians, women and children, he reacted. Emotionally.
What I also believe is that his generals and advisers were in congruence with this thinking because it didn’t remove President Trump from the mainstream of a limited and coordinated response. It served everyone’s purpose.
This is both assuring and disturbing, simultaneously.
A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.
Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”
“Hate speech,” you see, equates to not advocating on behalf of Islam. The UK now, like many Western countries, has migrated with regard to Islam in this fashion:
In other words, if you are not an active advocate, then you must be an _______-ist or _______-phobe. Fill in the blank.
In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist actsaround the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
Right. The nature, backgrounds and persons responsible for the various attacks — if they involve Islam in any fashion — must be “downplayed or rejected” in favor of “ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS.”
Such as, perhaps, sunspots, tidal pull, bad flatus, global warming, parking tickets? You get the drift. Just make up shite as you go along. Let’s actively lie, as a government, to the electorate because we cower in front of Islam. We have no spine, no courage, no truth.
Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”
And there you go. A press “regulator” who will “independently” determine just what it is that you, in the UK (and soon to occur in the US), will see and know. What will be the consequences should various articles not “conform” to the Brussels and ECRI ideals? Send the authors back for “regrooving” like a bad truck tire? Indoctrination classes and camps? Civil penalties? Actual criminal penalties?
“At the same time, the commission noted considerable intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration. It said that hate speech continues to be a serious problem in tabloid newspapers, and that online hate speech targeting Muslims in particular has soared since 2013.”
I wonder if said speech has increased commensurate with Muslim attacks on the UK, France, Belgium and other Western EU countries? My guess? Yes. Speech is just that. Speech. The UK does not possess our First Amendment.
So, to #NeverTrumpers and all others: if you want this in your country just stay home on election day. Refuse to fill out your absentee ballot. Vote down-ticket only. You’ll get precisely what you want, which is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
You’ll also acquire a reflective reduction of your rights such as freedom of speech, your right to self-defense, your right to not be micro-managed by the United States of America, your right to know what is occurring under your noses. Eric Arthur Blair would be patting himself on the shoulder right about now due to his prescience.
Oh boy, a continuation of more repression, corruption, lies and governmental tyranny under Hillary Rodham Clinton in the fine tradition of Barack Hussein Obama.
Angela Merkel has mostly single-handedly managed to doom the bulk of Europe via her guilt-dripping decision to import Syrian “refugees” into Germany and, by dint of that, into the rest of Europe.
The UK’s Pat Condell (an atheist) states the obvious which, sadly, isn’t obvious to GOWPs, Leftists, Demorats, Progressives and — naturally — to Muslims.
“Europe’s last chance” indeed.
With the startling caveat that what is failing in Europe is being sought-after and embraced by our own Leftist, Demorat and Progressive wingnuts because — after all — Leftists possess what I term Historical Alzheimers and have shown time and again they learn nothing from history.
Even when it is occurring right in front of them, under their very elitist, arrogant, gentrified noses.