Is the West Facing a Forever War?

Random killings of people on the streets, completely unknown to the murderer, has become the latest brand of Islamist terrorism now haunting the West with increasing frequency. When will imams worldwide join together to condemn this radical Islamist adulteration of their faith?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On May 22, Salman Abedi, 22, waiting at the entrance of the Arianna Grande pop concert in Manchester, blew himself up, killing almost two dozen people, among them parents waiting to pick up their children.

Saturday, three Islamic terrorists committed “suicide-by-cop,” using a van to run down pedestrians on London Bridge, and then slashing and stabbing patrons of pubs and diners in the nearby Borough Market.

By all accounts, the killers bore no special grudge against those they murdered. They appear not even to have known their victims.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Why, then, did they kill these strangers, and themselves?

A BBC eyewitness suggests a motive: “They shouted, ‘This is for Allah’ as they stabbed indiscriminately.”

The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.

Gideon Elite book cover

Ideas have consequences. And where might these crazed killers have gotten an idea like that?

Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?

On Palm Sunday, an explosion in Tanta, 56 miles north of Cairo, killed 29 and injured 71 Copts as they prayed at the Mar Girgis church. A second blast at a church in Alexandria killed 18 and wounded 35.

On May 26, masked gunmen stopped two buses carrying Coptic Christians to Saint Samuel the Confessor Monastery in Egypt and opened fire, killing 26 and wounding 25.

“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” said Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning.

Yet, years of such atrocities have effected a near-complete cleansing of Christianity from its cradle provinces in the Holy Land.

If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?

IRS Loses Cases

Clearly, from the suicide bombings and shootings of civilians in the Middle East, now across the West, there is a belief among some Muslims that what the killers are doing is moral and meritorious—taking the martyr’s path to salvation.

When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and the West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?

In condemning the London Bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said that recent atrocities across England were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”

Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West, even as this school of fanatics is seeking to purge Christianity from the East.

We are at war. And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”

Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified? Are lashings and executions of Christian converts justified?

Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?

Other questions need answering as well.

Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs? Is our First Amendment freedom of speech and of religion extensive enough to cover the sermons of imams who use mosques to preach in favor of expelling Christians from the Middle East and an eventual takeover of the West for an Islam where Sharia replaces constitutional law?

Are such Islamist beliefs not intolerable and perilous for our republic?

Clearly, the West is in a civilizational struggle, with the outcome in some doubt.

Four years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire had ceased to exist. Japan was smoldering ruins, its navy at the bottom of the Pacific. An American proconsul, Douglas MacArthur, was dictating to the Japanese from the Dai-Ichi building.

Today, we are in the 16th year of a war begun on 9/11. We are mired down in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Our victory in Afghanistan is being reversed by the Taliban.

While the ISIS caliphate is being eradicated in Raqqa and Mosul, its elements are in two dozen countries of the Mideast. Muslim migrants and refugees, ISIS and al Qaeda among them, are moving into Europe.

Terrorist attacks in the West grow in number and lethality every year. The new normal. Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.

To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.

Wars, it is said, are the death of republics. And we now seem to be caught up in an endless war.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore.




Manchester Bomber Was Product of West’s Libya/Syria Intervention

By Daniel McAdams

Here’s what the media and politicians don’t want you to know about the Manchester, UK, suicide attack: Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old who killed nearly two dozen concert-goers in Manchester, UK, was the product of the U.S. and UK overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and “regime change” policy in Syria. He was a radicalized Libyan whose family fled Gaddafi’s secular Libya, and later trained to be an armed “rebel” in Syria, fighting for the U.S. and UK “regime change” policy toward the secular Assad government.

The suicide attacker was the direct product of U.S. and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.

 

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester, had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the U.S./UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop-concert attendees. Before the U.S.-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad.

Gideon Elite book cover

In Salman Abedi we have the convergence of both these disastrous U.S./UK and allied interventions, however: It turns out that not only did Abedi make trips to Libya to radicalize and train for terror, but he also travelled to Syria to become one of the “Syria rebels” fighting on the same side as the U.S. and UK to overthrow the Assad government. Was he perhaps even trained in a CIA program? We don’t know, but it certainly is possible.

While the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians will argue that the only solution is more Western intervention in the Middle East, the plain truth is that at least partial responsibility for this attack lies at the feet of those who pushed and pursued Western intervention in Libya and Syria.

There would have been no jihadist training camps in Libya had Gaddafi not been overthrown by the U.S./UK and allies. There would have been no explosion of ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria had it not been for the U.S./UK and allied policy of “regime change” in that country.

When thinking about Abedi’s guilt for this heinous act of murder, do not forget those interventionists who lit the fuse that started this conflagration. The guilt rests squarely on their shoulders as well.

Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer. This column was originally published at the RonPaulInstitute.org.



9/11 Destroyed America

In America, telling the truth has become more dangerous than ever … even deadly to one’s career. “It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.” Why have we allowed a tiny handful of neoconservatives to destroy multiple Middle Eastern countries, along with whatever civil liberties we once had in America? 

By Paul Craig Roberts

The events on September 11, 2001 changed the world. It was the excuse for the U.S. government to launch military attacks on seven Middle Eastern countries, causing civilian casualties in the millions and sending waves of Muslim refugees into the Western world. The U.S. government wasted trillions of dollars destroying countries and murdering women and children, while public infrastructure in the U.S. deteriorated, Americans’ homes were foreclosed, and American health needs went unattended. 9/11 was also the excuse for the destruction of the protection that the U.S. Constitution provided to ensure the liberty of the American citizen. Today, no American has the protection of the civil liberty that the Constitution guarantees.

On September 11, 2001, when a neighbor called and told me to turn on the TV, I stopped what I was doing and turned on the TV. What I saw was the two World Trade Center towers blowing up. I had often enjoyed lunch in the rooftop restaurant in one of the towers across the street from my Wall Street Journal office.

A miniscule by comparison frail aluminum airliner hit one massive steel tower and then another aluminum airliner hit the other. There were some plumes of orange outside the buildings. Then approximately after one hour, less in one case, more in the other, the two towers exploded floor by floor as they fell into their own footprint.

This was precisely the way the news anchors described what I was seeing. “It looks exactly like a controlled demolition,” the news anchors reported. And indeed, it did. As a Georgia Tech student I had witnessed a controlled demolition, and that is what I saw on television, just as that was what the news anchors saw.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Later that day Larry Silverstein, who owned, or held the lease on, the World Trade Center, explained on TV that the free-fall collapse in the late afternoon of the third WTC skyscraper, Building 7, into its own footprint was a conscious decision to “pull” the building. Pull is the term used by controlled demolition to describe a building wired with explosives to be destroyed. Building 7 had not been hit by an airliner, and suffered only minor and very limited office fires. Silverstein’s statement was afterwards corrected by authorities to mean that the firemen were pulled from the building. However, many videos show the firemen already out of the building with the fireman stating that the building was going to be brought down.

As there is no doubt whatsoever that Building 7 was wired for demolition, the question is why?

Because Americans are an insouciant and trusting people and confident of the inherent goodness of their country, years passed before even experts noticed that the official story stood in total contraction to known laws of physics, was in total contradiction to how buildings collapse from asymmetrical damage and could not have collapsed due to being hit by airliners, as the buildings met all code requirements for withstanding airliner collisions. Many did not even know that the third skyscraper, Building 7, had collapsed.

Professor Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, was among the first to see that the official story was pure fantasy. His reward for speaking out was to have his tenure contract bought out by BYU, many believe under orders from the federal government backed up with the threat that all federal support of science at BYU would be terminated unless Stephen Jones was.

Liberty Stickers

Cynthia McKinney, a black woman who represented a Georgia congressional district in the US House of Representatives, was either much brighter or much braver than her white colleagues. She raised obvious questions about 9/11, questions begging to be asked, and lost her seat.

Approximately five years after 9/11, San Francisco architect Richard Gage noticed that the three WTC buildings did not fall down in any way consistent with the official explanation. He formed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which currently has about 3,000 members. This group includes high-rise architects and structural engineers who actually are experienced in the construction of skyscrapers. In other words, they are people who know what they are talking about.

These 3,000 experts have said that the official explanation of the collapse of three skyscrapers stands in contradiction to known laws of physics, architecture, and structural engineering

In other words, the official explanation is totally impossible. Only an uneducated and ignorant public can believe the official 9/11 story. The U.S. population fits this description.

A&E for 9/11 Truth is gradually gaining assent from architects and engineers. It is very difficult for an architect or engineer to support the truth, because the American population, which includes patriotic construction companies, whose employees fly American flags on their trucks, don’t want to hire architects and engineers who are “enemies of America aligned with Arab terrorists.” In America, if you tell the truth, you are in great danger of losing your customers and even your life.

Think now about physicists. How many physics faculties do you know that are not dependent on federal grants, usually for military-related work? The same for chemistry. Any physics professor who challenged the official story of 9/11 with the obvious fact that the story contravenes known laws of physics would endanger not only his own career but the careers of his entire department.

Truth in America is extremely costly to express. It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.

Our masters know this, and thus they can dispense with truth at will. Moreover, any expert courageous enough to speak the truth is easily branded a “conspiracy theorist.”

Who comes to his defense? Not his colleagues. They want rid of him as quickly as possible. Truth is a threat to their careers. They can’t afford to be associated with truth. In America, truth is a career-killing word.

In America, truth is becoming a synonym for “Russian agent.” Only Russian agents tell the truth, which must mean that truth is an enemy of America. Lists are being prepared of websites that speak truth to power and thus are seditious. In the United States today people can lie at will without consequence, but it is deadly to tell the truth.

NeoconThreat-Roberts-cover

Support A&E for 9/11 Truth. These are heroic people. 9/11 was the manufactured excuse for the neoconservatives’ 16 years of war crimes against millions of Muslims peoples, remnants of which now seek refuge in Europe.

Neoconservatives are a tiny number of people. No more than a dozen are of any consequence. Yet they have used America to murder millions. And now they are fomenting war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The world would never survive such a war.

Are Americans so insouciant that they will stand aside while a dozen neoconservatives destroy the world?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books available at American Free Press.




The Battle for Jerusalem

President Donald Trump’s America-first policies are a breath of fresh air after decades of policies that were devastating to middle-class Americans. But his unquestioning support of Israel has many people concerned that his views are emboldening the Israelis to step up crimes against the Palestinians and Arabs who live inside Israel.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Several Middle Eastern cities have seen fierce battles during recent years. Syria’s recapture of Aleppo last month was only the latest example. Many other Syrian, Iraqi, and Yemeni cities have also been devastated or destroyed in endemic urban warfare. But all of these battles are really just skirmishes. There is only one major contested city in the Middle East, and that is Jerusalem, known in Arabic as al-Quds, “the Holy City.” It is around this battle that all other warfare in the region revolves.

The hardline Zionists running Israel are determined to finish ethnically cleansing Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. They view Jerusalem as the “eternal undivided capital” of Greater Israel, their supposedly God-given real estate tract stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. And they will stop at nothing in pursuit of its conquest.

The rest of the region, and the world, is resisting. The international community agrees with the Palestinian leadership that Israel is illegally occupying East Jerusalem and must withdraw. That is why no U.S. president has ever agreed to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If President Donald Trump follows through on his stated intention to move the embassy, he could set off an explosion of bloodshed that will make the past few decades look like a peaceful golden age by comparison.

To understand how the battles for Aleppo, Mosul, Damascus, Fallujah, Daraa, Hama, Homs, Tripoli, Sana’a, and so many other Middle Eastern cities are actually skirmishes in the larger battle for Jerusalem, we need to consider the historical background.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Jerusalem is the heart of the Holy Land for all Abrahamic monotheists, including nearly 2.5 billion Christians, more than 1.5 billion Muslims, and slightly fewer than 15 million Jews. That means that, out of every 267 people for whom Jerusalem is a holy city, 266 are either Christian or Muslim, while only one is Jewish. Yet within that tiny Jewish minority of monotheists, an even tinier minority known as Zionists has managed to orchestrate the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of the Holy Land, expelling most of the Christians and Muslims who lived there, subjugating or killing the rest, and setting up an ever-expanding Jewish-superiority state in which non-Jews are second-class citizens.

The 1948 Nakba (Palestinian holocaust) and the 1967 Zionist war of aggression were the two key historical moments when the Zionists grabbed Jerusalem. In 1948 they took West Jerusalem, storming the rest in 1967. Though Israeli leaders assert they are only holding 1967-stolen land as a bargaining chip for peace (i.e., Palestinians permanently surrendering any claim to the land stolen in 1948) the reality is that they have never intended to relinquish Jerusalem, which is why they keep expelling Palestinians and building settlements.

Stealing the Holy City, after all, was the main reason they launched the 1967 war in the first place.

So what does this have to do with the devastation in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya? The Middle East has been destabilized by the Zionist colonial incursion. Throughout the region, ordinary people are unanimously opposed to Zionism.

But ruling elites have been bribed and bullied to surrender to the Zionists against the wishes of their people. The resulting turmoil has bred instability and radicalization.

The neocon Zionists tried to redraw the map of the Middle East with their 9/11 coup d’état, which was designed, as Gen. Wesley Clark revealed, to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.” All seven of these countries had leaders who refused to surrender to Zionism. So they were slated by the Zionists for destruction, using a U.S. military hijacked by the 9/11 false-flag operation.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to destroy that nation as a technologically and economically advanced state. “ISIS,” informally known as Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, continues to pursue the same mission in Syria as well.



 

The Saudi royals and other gulf leaders have joined the Zionist onslaught on the remaining independent (anti-Zionist) forces in the region, including in Syria, Yemen, and—the big prize—Iran.

Why? Because like the Zionists, the Saudi royals and other Persian Gulf despots depend on U.S. and Israeli backing. An independent Middle East would spell doom for the rulers in Riyadh as well as the leaders in Tel Aviv.

Shortly before Christmas, the Obama administration helped pass a UN resolution re-stating the U.S. and international position: Israeli settlements on land stolen in the 1967 war are illegal, and Israel must withdraw from that land, including Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went ballistic—and expanded settlement projects.

Now, with Trump backing Netanyahu, we are between a Dome of the Rock and a hard place. Let us all pray that Zionist belligerence does not explode into World War III.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.