Obama admin releases heavily redacted Benghazi emails on Christmas eve." (See 1 below.)
===
The Iran Deal is another Obama fraud.
Wake up America and most particularly you blind liberal Jews and Demwits.
Had POGO lived he might have also said, in addition to: "The Enemy Is Us;" "The Enemy Is Our President." (See 2 below.)
===
Tobin see Obama as I do. Capable but an unknown quantity and thus unpredictable and therefore, possibly dangerous should he become president but still better than taking a risk with another liar and incompetent. (See 3 below.)
===
An Analysis of the New Saudi Alliance. (See 4 below.)
and
Another update on Turkey. (See 4a below.)
Meanwhile
Muslims enter Germany in droves and Germans start buying weapons in droves. (See 4b below.)
====
When our son spent a year in Jerusalem he studied at Aish HaTorah and knew this Rabbi who was murdered by an insanely hateful "peace loving Arab." (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
=========================================================================
1) Bergdahl: Taliban Captors Asked If Obama Was Gay
Bowe Bergdahl's Taliban captors often got bored while they were guarding him, and would ask him questions to pass the time — including whether President Barack Obama is a homosexual, the podcast "Serial" reveals.
"They ask you, is Obama gay and sleeps with men," Bergdahl says in the third part of the podcast, the New York Post reports.
He also told the program that the guards would shave his beard into shapes they thought were amusing to pass the time, and had many questions about where people on U.S. military bases got hold of prostitutes, alcohol, and drugs.
In addition to being curious about Obama's sex life, the guards had a fascination with American soft drinks, particularly Mountain Dew, Bergdahl told the podcast.
Bergdahl told filmmaker Mark Boal in an interview shared with "Serial' that his first escape attempt came soon after he was captured in Afghanistan, but he was free for only 15 minutes before he was captured and taken back to his cell, where he was beaten with a rubber hose.
After that, he was moved to what he believes was Pakistan, where "they put me on an Afghan bed and they chained my feet to the ends of the bed and chained my hands to the tops of the bed so that basically I was spread-eagle on the bed and blindfolded. And that’s how I spent the majority of the next three months."
He said he was allowed to use the bathroom only twice daily and he only got showers once a month, and eventually developed bedsores and chronic diarrhea.
"I’d seen like six drones moving across the sky," he said in the interview. "It’s not a nice feeling you’re so close but things are so stacked against you, you can’t do anything but keep going." He was so frail when the Taliban found him that instead of beating him, his captors ripped out parts of his hair and beard.
“It was like OK if I’m going to die, either from exposure out there or being shot while I escape, it’s better than having my head cut off because I saw enough of those movies or videos to know what that would be like,” Bergdahl said.
==================================================================================
2)
| Analysis: A new confrontation between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran? |
|
|
| An IAEA report shows that Iran was lying about its military nuclear program, but the deal continues. |
|
|
THE US administration is concerned about the possibility of a new confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest report on Iran’s nuclear shenanigans. “We hope it won’t happen,” a senior US official tells The Jerusalem Report, “but if it does, it will be a completely different ball game. The administration will not sit idly by this time and it will be vindictive.”
In November, the IAEA published a report on Iran’s past nuclear activities, also known as the “Possible Military Dimension” (PMD). The long-awaited report was supposed to determine and conclude whether Iran had been actively involved in acquiring and mastering the expertise to assemble a nuclear bomb.
The report, however, is somewhat inconclusive and leaves all the parties dissatisfied.
However, one thing is certain.
The process of further implementing the nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers signed in July will not be disrupted.
According to the agreement, also known as the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPA), Iran’s nuclear program will be scaled down, restricted and limited for 10 to 15 years.
Iran must, as soon as possible – around spring 2016 – dismantle uranium-enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordow, including 14,000 centrifuges, and remain with only 6,000 spinning machines. Iran is also required to dismantle and redesign its nuclear reactor in Arak, where it intended to produce plutonium, and to fully cooperate with the IAEA and to be under its intrusive inspection regime. Accordingly, the economic sanctions – the most crippling of which were imposed on Iran’s oil and gas sector ‒ will be gradually lifted.
An important aspect of the talks that led to the JCPA deal was the PMD issue. In fact, it was because of past suspicions that Iran had carried out illegal nuclear military activities and tried to deceive the world that the UN Security Council and subsequently the international community imposed in 2006 crippling economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Iran has claimed all these years that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.
But the IAEA report’s findings show that Iran was lying. The report clearly states that Iran had a military nuclear program until 2003 and even probably beyond until 2009.
This included work in the field of “weaponization” – testing a chain reaction and detonation of explosives ‒ the last stage in assembling a nuclear bomb.
A KEY installation in the Iranian weaponization program was Parchin, a military base not far from Tehran. For years, Iran refused to allow IAEA inspectors any access to that base. Only after signing the agreement with world powers five months ago was partial and limited access permitted.
The IAEA arrived in Parchin and directed its Iranian counterparts on where and how to collect samples of soil, water and vegetation and how to seal them to prevent tampering. But the actual collection and sampling was carried out by Iranians with IAEA inspectors watching closely and filming the work.
Those who opposed the deal – Republicans in the US and Netanyahu in Israel ‒ argued that the sampling process would not be sufficiently reliable and leaves room for further Iranian cheating and deception. Yet, it turned out that, despite all that, the IAEA was not deceived and amassed enough evidence about Iran’s nuclear-military past.
For this, IAEA inspectors and analysts deserve credit for managing to piece together and decipher most of the activities that took place at Parchin despite the hurdles and obstacles put in their way.
However, the report also explains that such activities were for “scientific research” and “feasibility studies.”
In that sense, the report is comparable to a police investigation that unmasks the crime or the terrorist attack by having intelligence evidence that, unfortunately, is not admissible in court and cannot lead to a clear-cut verdict.
Yet, the report confirms Israeli intelligence assessments by the Mossad and Military Intelligence, as well as CIA estimates, that Iran was conducting weaponization tests.
Nevertheless, the IAEA report will not block implementation of the world powers’ nuclear deal with Iran. This is because the deal is not conditional on the IAEA report and doesn’t contain any clauses that categorically and unequivocally demand of Iran full transparency and revelation of its nuclear past, but only its present and future ones.
Because of its indecisive nature, the interpretation of the report depends on the point of view of the beholder.
The report disappoints Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and those in Iran who supported and pushed for the deal. They hoped that Iran would be given a clean sheet and the PMD “file” would be closed forever.
That didn’t happen.
Iran’s conservatives, who opposed the nuclear deal from the outset arguing that their country caved in to international pressure and its sovereignty was violated and became exposed to “decadent” Western economic and cultural influence, now have more ammunition with which to pick on Rouhani.
In the US, the report is providing ammunition to Republicans who opposed the deal from the outset and accused President Barack Obama of not being tough on the Islamic Republic.
The report also seems to back up Netanyahu’s claim that Iran cannot be trusted and that the nuclear deal was a historic mistake.
This is the background to fears in the US administration that sooner or later – certainly before the final implementation of the JCPA next spring – Republican lawmakers will try, once again, to sabotage the deal.
And administration sources are expressing their concern that, once again, Netanyahu will jump onto the Republican bandwagon.
Last April, three months before the nuclear deal was signed, Netanyahu, in an unprecedented move, was invited by John Boehner, then the Republican speaker of the house, to address Congress. While the Republicans just wanted to embarrass the president, Netanyahu hoped to torpedo the deal. But by dancing to the tunes of the Republican Party – its major donor is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a friend of Netanyahu – the prime minister was thought to be interfering in US policy and siding with Obama’s opponents.
Both the Republicans and Netanyahu were outmaneuvered by Obama, who was determined to ensure that the nuclear deal happened. However, Netanyahu never publicly conceded defeat and he continues to describe the deal as a “bad” one.
IN NOVEMBER, Netanyahu met Obama in Washington and adopted a conciliatory tone, and the two seemed to mend their differences.
But “Obama didn’t forget and didn’t forgive,” US sources say. After Netanyahu’s partisan performance in Congress, Obama made a calculated decision not to retaliate against Netanyahu and Israel. Nevertheless, according to the sources, if Netanyahu repeats his anti-deal, anti-Obama behavior, “this time there will undoubtedly be a fierce reaction and retribution will follow accordingly.”
The US sources admit that even in such a worst-case scenario US military aid to Israel, currently $3.1 billion, will not be affected.
But, they point out that Netanyahu, in his meeting with Obama, asked for additional funds as “compensation” for the nuclear deal. Israel is concerned that once sanctions are lifted and money begins pouring in to revive the Iranian economy, some of it will be diverted to further sponsor anti-Israel terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and upgrade the Iranian armed forces.
The two leaders agreed to form a joint commission to discuss the Israeli request for additional aid. “In case Netanyahu goes wild again, we may stop or suspend or delay the talks,” the sources warned.
They also refer to events that took place 40 years ago. In 1975 after the initial disengagement agreement between Israel and Egypt, when the Labor government led by Yitzhak Rabin refused a further withdrawal from Sinai, US president Gerald Ford and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger punished Israel by halting all talks with Israel.
The US then “reassessed” its relations with Israel. This could recur. It all depends on Netanyahu.
Yossi Melman is an Israeli security commentator and co-author of ‘Spies Against Armageddon.’
==============================================================================================
3)
After six months of waiting for the trend to fade it’s time for political observers to concede the obvious: Donald Trump is for real. With the final presidential polls for 2015 coming in, Trump has not only held his lead in the national polls but has actually expanded it in all but one of the four surveys published in the last week. Though a lot of smart people keep telling us that there’s no way Trump will be the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, it’s time to stop the denial. He not only could be the nominee, unless a number of things happen that are far from certain to occur, he will be the nominee.
Can he win a general election? Trump’s ability to generate support from those who are fed up with political correctness and the political establishment should not be underestimated. His fans not only like him. The more he violates taboos or says offensive or even obviously foolish things or demonstrates ignorance of vital issues, they better they like it.
Yet at the moment a victory in November for him would seem unlikely since he consistently trails Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups. That could change but if we are, as he wishes us to, take seriously the same pollsters’ data about Republicans, we need to respect their findings about the general electorate too. For all of her weaknesses as a candidate — and they are, as I have written, many — Clinton would have to be considered a heavy favorite against him if for no other reason than antipathy for Trump might be the only thing that might generate the kind of turnout from the Democratic base that might equal that given Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. That would seem to doom him and the GOP to certain defeat. While it’s not clear that he would, as some gloomy establishment types think, take down the entire party ticket with him costing the GOP control of the Senate, it’s hard to imagine him turning out enough angry white working and middle class supporters to offset the Democrats’ demographic and Electoral College advantages.
With six weeks to go before the first votes are cast in Iowa, any Trump panic among Republicans would seem to be premature. He could be beaten in some of the early states leading to the emergence of one or perhaps two other contenders representing the conservative Christian and more moderate wings of the party, either of which might ultimately prevail. But every scenario in which Trump loses seems to be predicated on the same assumption that was the foundation of past predictions of his inevitable defeat: that something will happen to make his support fade.
One theory holds that Trump’s magic will evaporate once he suffers a single defeat. Since his appeal is based on the idea that he is a winner and his opponents losers, if Trump is bloodied or beaten anywhere he will be transformed back into a mortal politician from his current status and the force of political gravity, which has been suspended in recent months will reassert itself. But that idea seems to be like something straight out of a fairy tale magic spell rather than a reasonable political analysis.
It’s true that Trump is in a neck-and-neck fight for Iowa right now with Ted Cruz. But he has a substantial lead in New Hampshire and South Carolina. It’s possible to spin any number of possible outcomes by which he might be defeated by Cruz if the Texas senator holds on in Iowa and sweeps the south. A more moderate conservative like Marco Rubio could also change things with respectable finishes in the early states and then winning Florida and many of the states that follow. But it must be acknowledged that all of these possible scenarios are more the product of wishful thinking on the part of Trump opponents than cold, clear logic. While the field will be culled after Iowa and New Hampshire, the question facing Republicans is whether that will be too late for the party to unite behind an alternative to Trump. While it is impossible to answer that question in advance with certainty, should New Hampshire produce a result in which more than one of the more moderate candidates is still left standing or if Trump and Cruz are the only viable contenders left in March, it’s hard to argue that Trump isn’t going to be the nominee. A stop Trump movement that isn’t solidly behind one candidate until that late in the process is never going to be successful.
That, of course, begs the question of whether it is right for conservatives to try to stop Trump.
The argument being heard from some quarters is that if Trump is the inevitable winner of the GOP nomination as he and some of his fans think, then anyone who tries to prevent this outcome is doing the Democrats’ dirty work. This falls under the same sort of thinking that blames the Republican establishment for the victories of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 in which mythical millions of conservatives and Reagan Democrats stayed home enabling the election of our most liberal president in decades. Given that the percentage of conservatives voting in those years was the same as it was in 2004, that’s nonsense but a lot of people on the right believe it. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether Trump is that far out of the conservative mainstream or that certain a loser that a movement to prevent him from becoming the nominee is defensible.
If Trump were merely a vulgarian and political incorrect while being otherwise a principled conservative, arguments against a movement to stop him would be compelling. But the real problem with Trump is not that he speaks and acts in a manner that is inappropriate for someone who aspires to the mantle of Washington and Lincoln. That is a reason to dislike him and to despair at the collapse of American culture but not to treat him as beyond the pale. Indeed, some think that these qualities give him the viciousness needed to successfully combat the Democrats and their attack machine. But this is also nonsense, since the last Republican to win a national election — George W. Bush — was the polar opposite of Trump’s barroom brawler persona.
Rather, the reason for conservatives to try and unite to prevent his election is because he is not a conservative. On domestic policy, both fiscally and on social issues, he has always seemed more of a Democrat than a typical Republican. At best, he would be exactly the kind of big government Republican that Tea Partiers and movement conservatives despise. On foreign policy, it must be understood that his hostility to Muslims isn’t a substitute for a serious policy that might restore American security. Whether it is his weak stand on Russia, his lack of understanding of the stakes involved in the fight against ISIS or his belief that Israel hasn’t yet made enough sacrifices for peace, he resembles Obama and Clinton more than his GOP competitors.
Assuming he could win a general election even if the party establishment fell in line behind him, that would prevent Clinton from becoming president. But, aside from his extreme and clearly unrealistic views about immigration (All 11 million illegals won’t be deported no matter who is elected president), GOP voters would be voting for a third term of Obama rather than the conservative change they want. Trump brings attitude and truculence to the table at a time when Obama’s appeasement of Iran and Russia has infuriated the right. But he is just as if not more likely than Obama to ignore Constitutional principles. His strength and élan is what many in the GOP crave but his actual views on the issues don’t resemble what conservatives actually believe in. Pointing this out isn’t doing the Democrats bidding. It’s just a matter of acknowledging the facts.
All this means that there is a moral imperative for Republicans to find a conservative alternative to Trump. But trying to give voters guilt trips, as Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are doing in New Hampshire is probably not going to be enough. The longer moderate Republicans dither about getting behind Marco Rubio, the most viable of their choices or one of the others still in the race, the less likely their choice will be to prevail. The circular logic that says Trump must be backed regardless of his inability to win or his lack of conservative principles because opposition helps the Democrats must be rejected. If the other candidates and their supporters truly want a chance at victory in 2016 they must start thinking now about stopping Trump rather than waiting until it is too late.
==============================================================
4)
| What is the meaning of the Saudi Sunni Holy Alliance? |
By Giancarlo Elia Valori
The Saudi–Sunni Union
Saudi Arabia announced the creation of a broad Sunni anti-ISIS alliance
including 34 Gulf, Middle East, African and Asian countries. How does this
affect the balance in the Middle East?
In mid-December 2015, exactly on December 14, Saudi Arabia announced the
creation of a broad anti-ISIS alliance including 34 Gulf, Middle East,
African and Asian countries. A large Sunni coalition which, in the near
future, will contend with the large Shiite union – which has Iran as its
point of reference – for regional and global power and hegemony.
It is an alliance between Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (which is mostly Shiite, but
is ruled by a Sunni group), Bangladesh, the "free Bengal" which is still one
of the best successes of the KGB in the Indian subcontinent, Benin, Chad,
the Comoros, the Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Jordan,
Kuwait, the Lebanon, which has a Shiite majority in the South, Libya,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan,
which had its nuclear atomic bomb thanks to the Saudi money, Palestine, in
the sense of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), Qatar, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) and Yemen.
Many of these countries are often rightly accused of supporting Al Baghdadi’s
Caliphate (Qatar, Turkey); others are victims of a civil war on
ethno-religious grounds (the Houthi Shiites in Yemen) and many others have
always been a point of reference for the fight – including the West’s fight
against the jihad (Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco).
However, what is the meaning of this Sunni Holy Alliance? The Coalition has
excluded Iraq and Syria which, whatever happens, are characterized by a
Sunni majority in the latter case and a large Sunni minority in the former
case, as indeed happens also in other countries which, on the contrary, are
part of the Coalition. Hence, how and to what extent will this new alliance,
focused on Saudi Arabia, change the strategy of the other alliances already
operating in the region?
Saudi Arabia is already part of the US-led Coalition operating in Syria
against the jihadists and the Caliphate’s militants. Furthermore, the United
States is in favor of the alliance of 34 Muslim nations, but the issue lies
in seeing how this new configuration of the strategic balances in the Gulf
region and in the Greater Middle East will justify the new Iranian arms race
after the P5+1 agreement which, as I have already demonstrated, does not
wipe out the dangers of Iran’s nuclearization.
Certainly, Saudi Arabia can rely on a tacit agreement with Israel to fight
the greatest neighboring enemy, namely Iran, but the Israeli leadership
knows all too well that the encirclement by the new military alliance
sponsored by Saudi Arabia to combat terrorism can quickly choke and stifle
the Jewish State, while the United States is clearly moving away from the
Greater Middle East, hypnotized by its shale oil.
A fragmentation of Syria
Hence, if the future of post-Caliphate’s Syria is splitting on
ethno-religious grounds – as is currently extremely likely – we will have an
"Alawistan" along the country’s Mediterranean coast, closely linked to the
Russian Federation and Iran. On the other hand, the Imam Mussa Sadr was
abducted in Rome and then killed for having said that the Alawites could be
considered Shiites... The significance and sense of Alawistan will be to
enable Russia to have its military fleet been stably and fully present in
the Mediterranean. In all likelihood, in the center of Syria there will be a
"Sunnistan" linked to Saudi Arabia and the 34-country Coalition, which will
have strategic significance only if it succeeds in curbing and blocking the
Iranian influence in Mesopotamia. Moreover, there will be a buffer state
formed by the Kurds, who will preserve their autonomy and, where necessary,
will fight against Iran on the one side and against Turkey on the other.
A fragmentation of Syria which will generate small states deprived of any
economic independence, political substance, stability and, hence, usefulness
for those who want to use them on Mesopotamia’s chessboard. Furthermore,
Iran could play the "East card", by expanding to Central Asia, where there
are many Shiite areas. In this case it would become the power broker between
Russia and China in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to protect the
new "Silk Road" planned by President Xi Jinping to make China emerge from
its geopolitical and geographical isolation, towards the regional sea of the
future, namely the Mediterranean.
Hence the European Union, which counts for nothing, will be forced to
rethink a consistent and rational policy for the Greater Middle East, well
beyond the mere lip service paid to notions such as "stabilization" and
"peace-building" which, as we have already seen, generate only their
opposite.
If the United States really wants to oppose Russia and China, they shall
rebuild their circuit of petrodollars with Saudi Arabia, born since the Yom
Kippur War. Otherwise the new Chinese and Russian finance will gradually
exclude the US currency from global trade – and this will happen when the
ruble and the renminbi will be fully convertible. The proposal for a "new
Bretton Woods" has become a refrain of the Chinese central bank. Hence Syria
will be the focus for the definition of the new global balances.
4a)
Turkey's Dangerous Ambitions
It is the same old Middle East story: The Shiites accuse Sunnis of passionately following sectarian policies; Sunnis accuse the Shiites of passionately following sectarian polices; and they are both right. Except that Turkey's pro-Sunni sectarian policies are taking an increasingly perilous turn as they push Turkey into new confrontations, adding newcomers to an already big list of hostile countries.
Take President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's recent remarks on the centuries-old Shiite-Sunni conflict: they amusingly looked more like a confession than an accusation: "Today we are faced with an absolute sectarianism. Who is doing it? Who are they? Iran and Iraq," Erdogan said. This is the same Erdogan who once said, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...." Is that not sectarian? So, with a straight face, the president of one sectarian country (Sunni Turkey) is accusing other countries (Shiite Iran and Shiite-dominated Iraq) of being sectarian.
Erdogan went on: "What about the Sunnis? There are Sunni Arabs, Sunni Turkmen and Sunni Kurds [in Iraq and Syria]. What will happen to their security? They want to feel safe."
Turkey's pro-Sunni sectarian policies are taking an increasingly perilous turn.
|
Never realizing that its ambitions to spread Sunni Islam over large swaths of the Middle East, especially Syria and Iraq, were bigger than its ability to do so, Turkey now finds itself confronting a formidable bloc of pro-Shiite countries: Russia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq, plus the much smaller Lebanon.
Even before the crisis with Russia that began on November 24 -- over Turkey's shooting down a Russian SU-24 along the Turkish-Syrian border -- has shown any sign of de-escalation, another Turkish move had sparked a major dispute with neighboring Iraq.
Just when Turkey moved to reinforce its hundreds of troops at a military camp in Iraq, the Baghdad government gave an ultimatum to Ankara for the removal of all Turkish soldiers stationed in Iraq since last year. Turkey responded by halting its reinforcements. Not enough, the Iraqis apparently think. Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, said on December 7 that his country might turn to the UN security council if Turkish troops in northern Iraq were not withdrawn within 48 hours. Hadi al-Ameri, the head of the militant Shiite Badr Organization, threatened that his group would fight Turkish forces if Ankara continued its troop deployment.
Badr Brigade spokesman Karim al-Nuri put the Turkish ambitions in quite a realistic way: "We have the right to respond and we do not exclude any type of response until the Turks have learned their lesson ... Do they have a dream of restoring Ottoman greatness? This is a great delusion and they will pay dearly for Turkish arrogance."
Badr Brigade spokesman Karim al-Nuri: "They will pay dearly for Turkish arrogance."
|
Inevitably, Russia came into the picture. Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said he told the Security Council that Turkey was acting "recklessly and inexplicably" by sending troops across the border into Iraq without the consent of the Iraqi government.
All that fell on deaf ears in Ankara, as Erdogan repeated on Dec. 11 that Turkey would not pull out its troops from Iraq. In response, Iraq appealed to the UN Security Council to demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Turkish troops from northern Iraq, calling Turkey's military incursion a "flagrant violation" of international law.
The next day, Shiite militia members gathered in Baghdad's Tahrir Square to protest against Turkey. Crowds of young men in military fatigues, as well as some Shiite politicians, chanted against Turkish "occupation," vowing they would fight the Turkish troops themselves if they do not withdraw. Angry protesters also burned Turkish flags.
Through its efforts to oust Syria's non-Sunni president, Bashar al-Assad, and build a Muslim Brotherhood-type of Sunni Islamist regime in Damascus, Turkey has become everyone's foe over its eastern and southern borders -- in addition to having to wait anxiously for the next Russian move to hit it -- not knowing where the blow will come from.
The confrontation with Russia has given Moscow an excuse to augment its military deployment in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean and weaken allied air strikes against Islamic State (IS).
Russia has increased its military assets in the region, including deploying S-400 air and anti-missile defense systems, probably ready to shoot down the first Turkish fighter jet flying over Syrian skies.
Waiting for Turkish-Russian tensions to ease, and trying to avoid a clash between NATO member Turkey and Russia, U.S. officials have quietly put on hold a request for Turkey to more actively to join the allied air missions in Syria against IS. After having lost its access to Syrian soil, Turkey also has been declared militarily non grata in Iraq.
As Professor Norman Stone, a prominent expert on Turkish politics, explained in a recent article:
Erdogan's adventurism has been quite successful so far, but it amounts to an extraordinary departure for Turkish foreign policy, and maybe even risks the destruction of the country. How on earth could this happen? The background is an inferiority complex, and megalomania. For centuries, and even since the Mongols, sensible Islam has asked: 'What went wrong? Why has God forsaken us, and allowed others to reach the moon?'
With the inferiority complex and megalomania still gripping the country's Islamist polity, Erdogan's Islam is not sensible; it is perilous.
Russian conflict is weakening the fight.
Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
4b) Germans Stock Up on Weapons for Self-Defense
The scramble to acquire weapons comes amid an indisputable nationwide spike in migrant-driven crime, including rapes of German women and girls on a shocking scale, as well as physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies and burglaries — in cities and towns throughout the country.
German authorities, however, are going to great lengths to argue that the German citizenry's sudden interest in self-defense has nothing whatsoever to do with mass migration into the country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The spike in violent crimes committed by migrants has been corroborated by a leaked confidential police report, which reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 crimes a day — is only a fragment: many crimes are not reported.
"Anyone who asks for the reasons for the surge in weapons purchases encounters silence." — Süddeutsche Zeitung
Germans, facing an influx of more than one million asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, are rushing to arm themselves.
All across Germany, a country with some of the most stringent gun-control laws in Europe, demand is skyrocketing for non-lethal self-defense weapons, including pepper sprays, gas pistols, flare guns, electroshock weapons and animal repellants. Germans are also applying for weapons permits in record numbers.
The scramble to acquire weapons comes amid a migrant-driven surge in violent crimes — including rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults — in cities and towns throughout the country.
German authorities, however, are going to great lengths to argue that the German citizenry's sudden interest in self-defense has nothing whatsoever to do with mass migration into the country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
In recent weeks, German newspapers have published dozens of stories with headlines such as: " Germany is Afraid — And Grabs for the Weapon," " Germans are Arming Themselves: The Demand for Weapons Explodes," " More and More People are Buying a Weapon," " Security: Hands Up!" " The Need for Security Increases," " Boom in Weapons Stores," and " Bavarians are Arming Themselves— Afraid of Refugees?"
The German daily newspaper Die Welt recently produced a video report about Germany's surge in sales of self-defense weapons, which was titled "The Weapons Business is Profiting from the Refugee Crisis." (Image source: Die Welt video screenshot)
|
Since Germany's migration crisis exploded in August 2015, nationwide sales of pepper spray have jumped by 600%, according to the German newsmagazine, Focus. Supplies of the product are now completely sold out in many parts of the country and additional stocks will not become available until 2016. "Manufacturers and distributors say the huge influx of foreigners in recent weeks has apparently frightened many people," Focus reports.
According to KH Security, a German manufacturer of self-defense products, demand is up by a factor of five, and sales in September 2015 — the month when the implications of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door migration policy began to dawn on many Germans — were the highest since the company was founded 25 years ago. The company says there is an increased demand not only for self-defense weapons, but also for home alarm systems.
Another manufacturer of self-defense products, the Frankfurt-based company DEF-TEC Defense Technology, has reported a 600% increase in sales this fall. According to CEO Kai Prase:
"Things took off beginning in September. Since then, our dealers have been totally overrun. We have never experienced anything like this in the 21 years of our corporate history. Fear: This is not rational. The important term is: 'refugee crisis.'"
The same story is being repeated across Germany. According to the public broadcaster, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, citizens in Saxony can regularly be seen queuing up in large numbers waiting for gun shops to open.
A store owner in the Saxon town of Pirna said he is now selling up to 200 cans of pepper spray each day, compared to five cans a week before the migrant crisis began. He said he is seeing many new customers who are not the typical clientele, including women of all ages and men who are buying weapons for their wives.
Günter Fritz, the owner of a gun shop in Ebersbach, another town in Saxony, told RTL News, "Since September, all over Germany, also at my shop, sales of self-defense products have exploded." He added that his clients come from all walks of life, ranging "from the professor to the retired lady. All are afraid."
Andreas Reinhardt, a gun shop owner in the northern German town of Eutin, said he now sells four to five self-defense weapons each day, compared to around two per month before the recent influx of asylum seekers. "The current social upheaval is clearly driving the current rush to self-defense," he said. "I never thought that fear would spread so quickly," he added.
Eric Thiel, the owner of a gun shop in Flensburg, a city on the Baltic Sea coast, said that pepper spray is no longer available: "Everything is sold out. New supplies will not arrive until March. Everything that has to do with self-defense is booming enormously."
Wolfgang Mayer, the owner of a gun shop in Nördlingen, a town in Bavaria, said he has an explanation for the surge in gun licenses: "I think with the influx of refugees, the rise in break-ins and the many tricksters, the people are demanding greater protection."
Mayer added that there is a growing sense within German society that the state cannot adequately protect its citizens and therefore they have to better protect themselves. "Since the summer, sales of pepper spray have increased by 50%," Mayer said, adding that buyers are mainly women, of all ages — from the student in the city up to the widowed grandmother.
Pepper spray and other types of non-lethal self-defense weapons are legal in Germany, but a permit is required to carry and use some categories of them. Officials in all of Germany's 16 federal states are reporting a spike in applications for such permits, known as the small weapons license ( kleinen Waffenschein).
In the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, nearly 10,000 people now hold a small weapons license, an "all-time record level," according to the regional interior ministry. Retailers in the state are also reporting an "unprecedented surge" in sales of self-defense weapons, with supplies of pepper spray sold out until the spring of 2016.
In Saxony, retailers are reporting an unprecedented boom in sales of pepper spray, tear gas, gas pistols and even cross bows. Some stores are now selling more self-defense weapons in one day than they did in an entire month before the migrant crisis began.
Saxon officials are also reporting a jump in the number of people applying for the full-fledged firearms license ( großen Waffenschein). The rush to arms can be attributed to a "subjective decline in the people's sense of security," Saxon Interior Minister Markus Ulbig said.
In Berlin, the number of people holding a small weapons license increased by 30% during the first ten months of 2015 compared to the same period in 2014, while the number of those holding the full-fledged firearms license jumped by some 50%, according to local police.
In Bavaria, more than 45,000 people now hold a small weapons license, 3,000 more than in 2014. This represents a "significant increase," according to the regional interior ministry. As in other parts of Germany, Bavarian retailers are also reporting a boom in sales of self-defense weapons, including gas pistols, flare guns and pepper spray.
In Stuttgart, the capital city of Baden-Württemberg, local gun shops are reporting a four-fold increase in sales of self-defense weapons since August. One shop owner said she now sells more weapons in one week than she normally sells in one month. She added that she has never seen such high demand.
In Heilbronn, another city in Baden-Württemberg, local officials report that sales of pepper spray have doubled in 2015. According to one shopkeeper, the demand for pepper spray began surging in August, when many mothers started purchasing the product for their school-aged daughters. "Our clients are extremely afraid," the shopkeeper said. "We are seeing this everywhere."
In Gera, a city in Thuringia, local media reported that at one store, the entire inventory of 120 cans of pepper spray was sold out within three hours. The store, which subsequently sold out of another batch of 144 cans, is now on a waiting list to obtain more because of supplier shortfalls.
A woman in Gera who bought pepper spray for her 16-year-old daughter said:
"I think it is fundamentally proper for me to protect my daughter. She is at that age where she is out alone in the evening. If she says she needs this for protection, I think this is not unjustified. Of course, due to the current situation that we now have in Germany. We just do not know who is here. There are quite a lot of people who are not registered."
The same trend toward self-defense is being repeated in the German states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia, where spiraling levels of violent crime perpetrated by migrants is turning some neighborhoods into no-go zones.
Apologists for mass migration are accusing German citizens of overreacting. Some point to recent studies — commissioned by pro-migration groups — which claim, implausibly, that the number of crimes committed by migrants is decreasing, not increasing.
Others deny that the rush to self-defense has anything to do with migrants at all. They blame a variety of different factors, including the early darkness associated with the end of daylight savings time, the jihadist attacks in Paris (which occurred in November, three months aftersales of self-defense weapons began to spike), and the need for protection from wild wolves in parts of northern Germany.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung described the deception this way:
"Anyone who asks for the reasons for the surge in weapons purchases encounters silence. Officially, the regulatory agencies say that anyone who applies for the small weapons license does not need to provide a justification and therefore the government offices have no explanation. 'But it is true that sometimes we clearly get the message that they are afraid because of the refugees,' says one, on condition that his name and office will not be mentioned in the newspaper. 'People have already told me: I want to protect my family.' We have reported this to the Ministry...
"The retailers also say nothing officially about the reasons for the increase in sales. Call a small gun shop. Many refugees arrived at the end of August, and since September the numbers are up, can there not be a connection? 'If you do not use my name: Sure, what else?' Says the man on the phone. The people who come to the store are afraid. They believe that among the refugees there are 'black sheep.' Some customers openly admit it."
Empirical evidence shows an indisputable nationwide spike in migrant-driven crime, including rapes of German women and girls on a shocking scale, as well as sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking.
The spike in violent crimes committed by migrants has been corroborated by a confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper. The document reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 crimes a day — is only a fragment: many crimes are not reported.
Not surprisingly, a new poll shows that 55% of Germans are pessimistic about the future, up from 31% in 2014 and 28% in 2013. The poll shows that 42% of those between the ages of 14 and 34 believe their future will be bleak; this is more than double the number of those (19%) who felt this way in 2013. At the same time, 64% of those aged 55 and above are fearful about the future.
The poll also shows that four-fifths (79%) of the German population believe the economy will deteriorate in 2016 due to the financial burdens created by the migration crisis, and 70% believe that member states of the European Union will drift further apart in the coming year. The most predictable finding of all: 87% of Germans believe their politicians will experience a decline in public support during 2016.
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in early 2016.
5)Rav Reuven Biermacher, HY"D
| Dear Aish Family, |
It is hard to put into words what the Aish HaTorah community has gone through these last 48 hours. Rabbi Reuven Biermacher HY"D taught a group of Panamanian young men at 10am. At 11 am he gave his regular shiur followed by a talk to a group of South American Aish students. Rabbi Biermacher left the Beis Medrash at 12:45 and was brutally murdered less than 30 minutes later at Jaffa Gate. His only crime was being Jewish and walking the streets of Jerusalem. He was a caring, giving Rebbe who loved every one of his students. He had a wonderful wife and seven great kids ages two to eighteen. The world is a lonelier place without him.
I was so proud of the way the students at the Yeshiva conducted themselves. Many of the talmidim had never been to an Orthodox funeral and you could see pockets of boys listening to words of strength from their Rabbis all over the funeral. The bus did not get back to the yeshiva until 3am. In the Yeshiva, after Rav Gil asked for a moment of contemplation to think about what good deeds the students could take on, the Yeshiva broke into the spontaneous singing of Acheinu, a song about the unity of the Jewish people.
In Rabbi Weisz's eulogy he asked all of us in the Aish community to take on something in Rabbi Biermacher's memory.
I would like to propose two projects that I will put my heart and soul into on behalf of Aish HaTorah and will update you on the first Yahrzeit as to our progress. Since this loss was both a physical and spiritual loss I decided to choose two separate projects in these categories.
I pledge to bring more Torah on behalf of Aish to South America. We will build more Aish Spanish speaking branches and increase the numbers of students in our Yeshiva who are native Spanish speakers.
I pledge to create an Aish Advocacy Program that focuses on keeping the Jews of Jerusalem safe. Jews must feel safe to walk the streets of Jerusalem. We will not ignore the lessons of our history. Jewish blood must no longer be cheap.
Aish HaTorah has also committed to collecting tzedaka money for the Biermacher family. Please give generously. May the Almighty give the Biermacher family and the greater Aish family the strength to continue to fulfill His will.
Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Steven Burg
Director General - Mankal
Aish HaTorah
=======================================================================================
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment