May 21, 2015
Justice under Islam?
In 2014 the al-Sheitaat tribe in Syria revolted against ISIS. Hundreds of tribesmen died in the massacre that followed ISIS’ reconquest of the area. Perhaps in revenge for his people, or perhaps out of a simple desire to fight a heinous enemy, a young man of the tribe fired a rocket-propelled grenade that killed two ISIS savages.
For that, he had to die:
Islamic State (Isis) has posted a video showing the execution with a bazooka of a young member of the Sunni al-Sheitaat tribe in Syria’s eastern Deir Ezzor (or Deir al-Zour) province.
The clip, which was shot on 20 May according to the Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently blog, shows an armed group of IS fighters addressing a man tied to a pole. A jihadist asks the teenager to say his name, where he is from, and what he did. The young man says his name is Ibrahim al-Sharida from the city of Abu Hamam in Deir Ezzor and he’s from the al-Sheitaat tribe.
He admits to killing two IS soldiers in Hai Sanour with a rocket-propelled grenade. The IS fighter says the boy “is an enemy of God” for killing the IS soldiers and that they will avenge their deaths. In an eye-for-an-eye retribution, the extremists kill the teenager by firing a bazooka from a distance at him.
At first this might remind one of the bizarre methods of execution the North Korean
psychotic god-king dictator imposes on those who offend him. But the sentence and the means of carrying it out have their roots in the sharia-law principle of qisas, which can be defined as “equal” or “eye for an eye” punishment, as ancient as the Code of Hammurabi. It’s the same principle by which ISIS justified the burning alive a Jordanian pilot last February: he had “rained fire” on areas held by ISIS, so he should die by fire. The teen in the linked article had fired an RPG at IS jihadis, so he should die in the same way. Islamic scholars may try to argue that this somehow “isn’t Islamic,” but the principle is there, straight from the 7th century.
But don’t you dare judge them “uncivilized.”
(Photo courtesy of IBT)
May 18, 2015
Some deal, Barack.
Of the many fatuous reasons President Obama has offered in support of his nuclear
giveaway deal, one of the big ones has been an exercise in scaremongering that runs something like this: “Congress has to approve this deal because, if we don’t, it will set off a nuclear arms race in the region.”
As with almost everything else our president says, he gets it all backwards:
Saudi Arabia telegraphed further opposition to the Obama administration’s ongoing push for the nuclear deal with Iran this week. This took place only days after the nation’s leader “snubbed” the president’s Persian Gulf Summit at Camp David.
The nation’s former head of intelligence argued the Sauds would match Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a matter of national security: “We can’t sit back … as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability…” Further, Prince Turki bin Faisal has said they will not fall behind: “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he declared at a recent conference in South Korea.
Emphasis added. Keep something in mind: Saudi Arabia may be famously corrupt; the Saudis may hypocritically enforce a particularly retrograde interpretation of Islamic law; they may tolerate slavery and treat their women like cattle; and they certainly export that same aggressive Islam and jihadism and have played a key role in the rise of the modern jihadist movement. They are all that. But they are also something else.
They are damn scared of Iran and they have all the wealth required to buy whatever weapons technology they feel they need to protect themselves against their hated Shiite foes.
Prince Turki is a very serious man and he sees the United States abandoning its traditional patronage of Saudi Arabia to appease the Saudis’ mortal enemies. If he says the Kingdom will have whatever the Iranians have (1), bank on it.
Barack Obama and John Kerry are creating the very thing they wanted to avoid in the Middle East: a nuclear arms race.
(1) And so will the Gulf states and Egypt, at a minimum.
May 18, 2015
Could have fooled me: I thought they had been doing that since the 60s “New Left” decided to take over the party from within after 1968. Then again, maybe this is a generational shift — the new progressive Left pushing out the graying generation of the New Left, the way the New Left swept aside the old New Deal liberals.
Regardless, here’s an interesting discussion of New York City’s “Sandinista Mayor” DeBlasio possibly mounting a challenge to Hillary, courtesy of PJTV:
Of all the possible challengers to Hillary, it’s either Senator Warren or Mayor DeBlasio who pose the strongest threat. And if either one of them wins, I suspect the Democrats will be facing a electoral wipeout to rival 1984.
May 16, 2015
“Coming for payback?”
Following up on this story, it looks like we really did get someone important; the jihadis are doing their usual, tiresome chest-thumping about revenge:
“If they took Abu Sayyaf, we will take Obama,” one ISIS supporter posted in the hours after the raid, which took place near the eastern Syrian city of al-Amr.
Vocativ analyzed social media across Syria in the wake of the strike and discovered some ISIS supporters claiming the news was U.S. propaganda intended to counter the momentum ISIS gained after it took most of the Iraqi city of Ramadi this week. Others tweeted from outside the Syrian city of Raqqa vowing revenge for the strike, saying they heard explosions and helicopters.
Here’s one of them on Twitter this morning:
(“If your goal is killing Abu Sayyaf then our goal is killing Obama and the worshipers of the cross. We have attacks coming against you.” Translation courtesy of Vocativ)
“Worshipers of the cross” is an Islamic insult aimed at Christians. Attacking and killing Christians is something ISIS (and other jihadi groups) have been doing a lot of in Syria, and this message threatens to bring it here to the US.
While we rightly mock the savages of ISIS, this is not a threat to be taken lightly. The conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch has repeatedly claimed that ISIS has a presence on the other side of the border in Mexico, though these claims have been disputed and denied by the government. Yet we do know other jihad terror groups have a presence in Mexico, and it is a fact our southern border is about as secure as a tissue-paper fence. We’ve already experienced several jihadi attacks here in the US, so we discount the threat from a group as determined as ISIS at our own peril.
Revenge is important in a honor-and-shame culture such as the Arabs’, and we can expect them to try to take it.
via Jihad Watch