Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Downed Russian Passenger Jet in Egypt (VIDEO)

Well, I warned about conspiracy theories, although I was thinking of the Russian variety, suggesting for example that the U.S. and its "Zionist allies" brought down the plane.

Of course, we could see ISIS conspiracies, except that I don't doubt the Islamic State could bring down a jet liner. If pro-Russian rebels could bring down MH-17, there's no reason to belief ISIS couldn't do the same with Flight 7K9268.

Zero Hedge has the video, "ISIS Releases Video of Alleged Russian Airplane Mid-Air Exposion After It Claims Responsibility For Disaster."

And at the Times of Israel, "Islamic State in Egypt claims it brought down Russian plane; 224 dead: Terror group hails success, although Sinai officials say technical failure led to crash; Russia rejects claim."

A YouTube of the ISIS video is here.

Plus, lots of doubts about the theory, at the Guardian, "Russian plane crash: investigation into cause begins – as it happened."

And at Tornoto's National Post, "Russian Metrojet plane carrying 224 people crashed in Sinai province, Egypt says. There were no survivors."

Air France, Lufthansa Suspend Flights Over Sinai Pending Crash Probe

You think?

At the Times of Israel, "2 European carriers take safety precautions after IS claims responsibility for downing Russian plane with loss of 224 lives."

PREVIOUSLY: "Russian Jet Crashes in Egypt, Killing 224 People (VIDEO)."

Russian Jet Crashes in Egypt, Killing 224 People (VIDEO)

Boy, you can bet there's going to be monstrous conspiracy theories.

At WSJ, "Russian Passenger Jet Crashes in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Killing 224 People":

A Russian passenger jet crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people on board, after losing contact with aviation authorities on Saturday.

Egyptian officials said the Airbus A321 jetliner, which was operated by Russian carrier Kogalymavia, was flying to St. Petersburg from Sharm El Sheikh, a resort town popular with Russian tourists, when it disappeared from radar screens.

Egypt’s flagship state-run newspaper, Al Ahram, quoted an Egyptian aviation official as saying the plane’s pilot had requested to land at the nearest airport after an unspecified mechanical problem shortly after taking off at 5:50 a.m. local time. The newspaper later cited another Egyptian aviation official as saying the pilot hadn’t made any distress calls or requests to land.

Egypt’s chief prosecutor said the cause of the crash was being investigated. He didn’t say whether terrorism was suspected.

Sinai Province, the Egyptian branch of Islamic State, claimed responsibility for downing the plane, but officials have cast doubt over whether the group has the capabilities to carry out such an attack. Islamic State and its affiliated groups have frequently made exaggerated claims.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to form a state commission to investigate the crash, the Kremlin said Saturday.

The Russian Embassy in Cairo said on its official Twitter account that all those on board were killed.

Mr. Putin “expressed his deepest sympathies to the families of those who died in the crash.”

The wreckage was located south of the city of Al Arish in the sparsely populated, mountainous north Sinai, according to the aviation authority. As many as 50 ambulances were dispatched, it said.

A spokesman for Egypt’s prime minister said 15 bodies had been recovered and sent to a morgue in Cairo, while investigators continued to search the crash site for evidence and victims. One of the black boxes, which record flight data and audio, was located and taken into the custody of the prosecutor general’s office, he said.

According to the spokesman, the passengers comprised 214 Russians and three Ukrainians, of which 138 were women, 62 men and 17 children. The count didn’t include the seven crew members.

According to the Kremlin, Vladimir Puchkov, Russia’s minister of civil defense, emergencies and disaster relief, was ordered to send aircraft to Egypt to aid in the recovery of the wreckage of the aircraft. Russia’s Emergencies Ministry said five aircraft were flying to Egypt with first responders and forensic investigators on board. The ministry also set up a hot line to aid families of the victims.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in March warned U.S. airlines to avoid flying over the Sinai Peninsula below 26,000 feet. Airline routes traversing the region “are at risk from potential extremist attacks involving antiaircraft weapons,” the FAA said, including shorter-range, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles. “Some of these weapons have the capability to target aircraft at high altitudes,” or when approaching or departing airports, the U.S. aviation regulator said, noting that an Egyptian military helicopter flying at lower altitudes had been downed by extremists using a missile...

More.

Also at Russia Today, "Bodies of 224 7K9268 crash victims delivered to Cairo morgue," and "Russian A321 fell 'almost vertically', technical fault behind crash."

Why Washington's Middle East Pullback Makes Sense

From Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, at Foreign Affairs, "The End of Pax Americana":

The Obama administration has clearly pulled back from the United States’ recent interventionism in the Middle East, notwithstanding the rise of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and the U.S.-led air war against it. Critics pin the change on the administration’s aversion to U.S. activism in the region, its unwillingness to engage in major combat operations, or President Barack Obama’s alleged ideological preference for diminished global engagement. But the reality is that Washington’s post-9/11 interventions in the region—especially the one in Iraq—were anomalous and shaped false perceptions of a “new normal” of American intervention, both at home and in the region. The administration’s unwillingness to use ground forces in Iraq or Syria constitutes not so much a withdrawal as a correction—an attempt to restore the stability that had endured for several decades thanks to American restraint, not American aggressiveness.

It’s possible to argue that pulling back is less a choice than a necessity. Some realist observers claim that in a time of economic uncertainty and cuts to the U.S. military budget, an expansive U.S. policy in the region has simply become too costly. According to that view, the United States, like the United Kingdom before it, is the victim of its own “imperial overstretch.” Others argue that U.S. policy initiatives, especially the recent negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, have distanced Washington from its traditional Middle Eastern allies; in other words, the United States isn’t pulling back so much as pushing away.

In actuality, however, the main driver of the U.S. pullback is not what’s happening in Washington but what’s happening in the region. Political and economic developments in the Middle East have reduced the opportunities for effective American intervention to a vanishing point, and policymakers in Washington have been recognizing that and acting accordingly. Given this, the moderate U.S. pullback should be not reversed but rather continued, at least in the absence of a significant threat to core U.S. interests.

BACK TO NORMAL

Between World War II and the 9/11 attacks, the United States was the quin­tessential status quo power in the Middle East, undertaking military intervention in the region only in exceptional circumstances. Direct U.S. military involvement was nonexistent, minimal, or indirect in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the 1956 Suez crisis, the Six-Day War in 1967, the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. The 1982–84 U.S. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon was a notorious failure and gave rise to the “overwhelming force” doctrine, which precluded subsequent U.S. interventions until Saddam Hussein’s extraordinarily reckless invasion of Kuwait forced Washington’s hand in 1990.

Washington didn’t need a forward-leaning policy because U.S. interests largely coincided with those of its strategic allies and partners in the region and could be served through economic and diplomatic relations combined with a modest military presence. The United States and the Gulf Arab states shared a paramount need to maintain stable oil supplies and prices and, more broadly, political stability. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the United States, Israel, and the Gulf Arab states have had the mutual objective of containing Iran. Beginning with the Camp David accords in 1978, American, Egyptian, and Israeli interests converged, and their trilateral relationship was reinforced by substantial U.S. aid to Egypt and Israel alike. And even after 9/11, the United States, Israel, and the Gulf Arab states had shared priorities in their fights against terrorism.

Over the past decade, however, several factors largely unrelated to Washington’s own policy agenda have weakened the bases for these alliances and partnerships...

Keep reading.

A Path Out of the Middle East Collapse

From Henry Kissinger, at the Wall Street Journal, "With Russia in Syria, a geopolitical structure that lasted four decades is in shambles. The U.S. needs a new strategy and priorities":

The debate about whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran regarding its nuclear program stabilized the Middle East’s strategic framework had barely begun when the region’s geopolitical framework collapsed. Russia’s unilateral military action in Syria is the latest symptom of the disintegration of the American role in stabilizing the Middle East order that emerged from the Arab-Israeli war of 1973.

In the aftermath of that conflict, Egypt abandoned its military ties with the Soviet Union and joined an American-backed negotiating process that produced peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan, a United Nations-supervised disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria, which has been observed for over four decades (even by the parties of the Syrian civil war), and international support of Lebanon’s sovereign territorial integrity. Later, Saddam Hussein’s war to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq was defeated by an international coalition under U.S. leadership. American forces led the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States were our allies in all these efforts. The Russian military presence disappeared from the region.

That geopolitical pattern is now in shambles. Four states in the region have ceased to function as sovereign. Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq have become targets for nonstate movements seeking to impose their rule. Over large swaths in Iraq and Syria, an ideologically radical religious army has declared itself the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL) as an unrelenting foe of established world order. It seeks to replace the international system’s multiplicity of states with a caliphate, a single Islamic empire governed by Shariah law.

ISIS’ claim has given the millennium-old split between the Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam an apocalyptic dimension. The remaining Sunni states feel threatened by both the religious fervor of ISIS as well as by Shiite Iran, potentially the most powerful state in the region. Iran compounds its menace by presenting itself in a dual capacity. On one level, Iran acts as a legitimate Westphalian state conducting traditional diplomacy, even invoking the safeguards of the international system. At the same time, it organizes and guides nonstate actors seeking regional hegemony based on jihadist principles: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria; Hamas in Gaza; the Houthis in Yemen.

Thus the Sunni Middle East risks engulfment by four concurrent sources: Shiite-governed Iran and its legacy of Persian imperialism; ideologically and religiously radical movements striving to overthrow prevalent political structures; conflicts within each state between ethnic and religious groups arbitrarily assembled after World War I into (now collapsing) states; and domestic pressures stemming from detrimental political, social and economic domestic policies.

The fate of Syria provides a vivid illustration...

Most excellent.

Keep reading.

Hamas Chief Calls Surge of Violence a New Palestinian Intifada (VIDEO)

At the Times of Israel, "Hamas leader declares ‘intifada’ in the West Bank":

Hamas’s chief in Gaza on Friday called violence that has hit Israel and the West Bank in recent days an “intifada” and urged further unrest.

“We are calling for the strengthening and increasing of the intifada… It is the only path that will lead to liberation,” Ismail Haniyeh said during a sermon for weekly Muslim prayers at a mosque in Gaza City.

“Gaza will fulfill its role in the Jerusalem intifada and it is more than ready for confrontation,” he added.

The Islamic terror movement Hamas rules Gaza, the Palestinian enclave squeezed between Egypt and Israel and separated from the West Bank.

Gaza has been the site of three wars with Israel since 2008, but it has remained mainly calm amid the recent unrest in Israel and the West Bank...

Also at the Guardian UK, "Violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories – the Guardian briefing," and "Hamas leader in Gaza declares intifada as deadly attacks continue."

Losing the War of Ideas

From Caroline Glick, at FrontPage Magazine, "The West's ideological delusions are now too dangerous to ignore":

We have arrived at the point where the consequences of the West’s intellectual disarmament at the hands of political correctness begins to have disastrous consequences in the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Speaking last month at the memorial service for the five US marines massacred at a recruiting office in Chattanooga, Tennessee, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said, “The meaning of their killing is yet unclear, and what combination of disturbed mind, violent extremism, and hateful ideology was at work, we don’t know.”

US Vice President Joe Biden claimed, the “perverse ideologues...may be able to inspire a single lone wolf, but they can never, never threaten who we are.”

Both men were wrong, and dangerously so.

The meaning of the killings was no mystery.

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot his victims down in cold blood because he was a jihadist. He wrote of his devotion to the Islamic war for global domination on his blog. He downloaded messages from Anwar Awlaki, the American al-Qaida commander killed in a drone attack in Yemen in 2011.

Awlaki’s most prolific follower to date was US Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan who massacred 13 soldiers and wounded 32 in his November 2009 assault at Ft. Hood, Texas. Yet, just as the Obama administration denies to this day that Hassan operated out of devotion to the cause of Islamic global supremacy through genocidal war, so Carter pretended away Abdulazeez’s obvious motive. And Biden stood before those whose lives were shattered by jihad last month and told them that jihad was not a threat to their way of life.

Ideas are the most powerful human force. And the idea of jihad that the Obama administration will not discuss is perhaps the most powerful idea in the world’s marketplace of ideas today.

The notion of jihad is fairly simple. It asserts that Islam is the only true religion. All other faiths are wrong and evil. It is the destiny of the one true faith to reign supreme. The duty of all Muslims is to facilitate Islam’s global rise and dominion.

How this duty is borne varies. Some take up arms.

Some engage in indoctrination. Some engage in subversion. And some cheer from the sidelines, providing a fan base to encourage those more directly engaged. What is most important is the shared idea, the creed of jihad.

The jihadist creed is a creed of war. Consequently, its adherents cannot live peacefully with non-jihadists.

By definition, those who subscribe to a jihadist world view constitute a threat to those who do not share their belief system.

Rather than contend with the idea of jihad, the West, led by the US, insists on limiting its focus to the outward manifestations of jihadist beliefs.

Physical bases of jihadists in places like Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen are targeted to kill specific people – like Awlaki. But the ideas that inspire them to action are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant and interchangeable with other ideologies, like Zionism and fiscal conservatism.

Unlike the Americans, the jihadists understand the power of their idea. And they invest hundreds of millions of dollars to propagate it. MEMRI recently reported that Islamic State (IS) runs at least three production companies. They disseminate professional- quality videos daily. The videographers, composers and singers who produce these films are IS members, no different from its beheaders, sex traders and chemical weapons purveyors.

Like IS’s battle successes and its sex slave industry, these videos have already had a profound impact on the shape of the Islamic world and the threat jihadist Islam constitutes for its opponents worldwide.

From Nigeria to Egypt to the Palestinian Authority to Pakistan, in Europe, the US and South America, jihadist armies and individual Muslims are embracing the idea of the caliphate – the ultimate aim of jihad – and pledging or weighing the option of pledging loyalty to IS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

As a result, the never reasonable notion that you can limit war against jihad to the physical bases of IS and other terrorist groups while ignoring the idea that motivates their actions has become downright deadly...

Keep reading.

How Hatred of the Jewish State Created the Red-Green Alliance

From Joseph Puder, at FrontPage Magazine, "The nexus of genocidal Islamists and hypocritical leftists":

Leftists indoctrinate and exploit innocent children in anti-Semitism and jihad terror propaganda. pic.twitter.com/iUDpz1mid7

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) August 6, 2015

The Jerusalem Post headlined the following in its culture section on July 12, 2015, “Irish Dance Competition canceled due to BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Pressure.” The Israeli “feis” (Irish Dance Competition) website was attacked by a radical political group called Irish-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) led by Raymond Deane, Kevin Squires, and Amanda Crawford. The first-ever Irish dance festival set to take place in Tel Aviv, Israel was cancelled due to a campaign of terrorist–like threats to performers, the school, students and parents. The IPSC website proudly featured a congratulatory message from Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian co-founder of the BDS movement.

The underlying truth about this story is that Irish leftists have banded together with Arab Islamists in a show of blind hatred toward the Jewish state. Of all the violators of human rights worldwide, the Irish-leftists condemn and seek to eviscerate only one “violator” – Israel. They have not threatened to punish Irish performers going anywhere else in the world except to Israel. According to the likes of Deane, Squires, and Crawford, the Assad regime in Syria, with the blood of 250,000 civilians is legitimate. Iran, whose ayatollahs hangs gays and lesbians, and oppress its Kurdish, Baluch, and Arab minorities, is fine as well. Turkey’s brutal suppression of its Kurdish minority is not a problem. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, to name a few, all gross violators of human rights, are exempt by IPSC. Only Israel is guilty.

“Human rights must take precedence over trade,” proclaims the IPSC website, yet the only country that observes human rights and religious freedom in the Middle East is Israel. Only in Israel are Arabs free. Palestinian-Arab-Muslims make life for gays, lesbians and Christians impossible. There are numerous stories of gays who fled to Israel after being tortured by the Palestinian Authority. According to Yossi Klein Halevi, “One young man discovered to be gay was forced by the Palestinian Authority police to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and he was then thrown into a dark cell infested with insects. During one interrogation, Palestinian police stripped him and forced him to sit on a Coke bottle. When he was released he fled to Israel.”

The Gatestone Institute International Policy Council, reported (February 15, 2012) that ”In recent years the Christian population has declined not only numerically, but also as a proportion of the overall population (in the Palestinian Authority areas and Gaza). This decline has been due to a number of factors: Christian emigration, a higher Muslim birthrate, poor economic conditions, the rise of Islamist groups, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad, growing insecurity, the use made of Christian towns such as Beit Jala as a base by Palestinian fighters for sniping against Israeli areas in Jerusalem, and Christian concern about their fate in the political future.”

The Palestinian legal and judicial system does not provide protection for Christian land owners, and enforces discrimination in educational, cultural, and taxation policies against Christians. Religious freedom in the Palestinian controlled territories is a wish, not a reality. Christians have suffered harassment, intimidation and maltreatment at the hands of the Palestinian-Muslim authorities. Christian businessmen have been extorted, and their property confiscated. Christian women have been abused and raped with impunity. Christian girls are “abducted, and have been subjected to forced marriages with Muslims,” which also means forced conversion to Islam. There have also been attempts to impose the Islamic dress code on Christian women.

The IPSC website is replete with circulars heralding: “Remember the Children of Gaza,” but do they remember that for years the children of Israel had to stay in bomb-shelters because Hamas in Gaza targeted their schools and kindergartens?  Does the BDS movement or IPSC bother to present the facts about Gaza?  How about the 10,000 rockets fired from Gaza targeting Israeli civilians? When Israel finally retaliated against the Hamas jihadists who share the same ideology as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the Muslim Brotherhood, (establishing a global Caliphate and making Islam reign everywhere) Hamas criminally and deliberately used women and children as human shields. Hamas counted on the fact that Israel would never intentionally target innocent civilians, especially children.

Barghouti’s BDS calls for: an end to Israel’s “occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories since 1967, including dismantling the Wall and colonies; an end to Israel’s system of racial discrimination against Palestinian citizens; and respecting the UN-sanctioned, fundamental right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.” Barghouti, who advocates academic boycott of Israeli universities, has himself received an MA degree from Tel Aviv University. The same Barghouti rejects the two-state solution or any deal between the Palestinians and Israel on that basis.

The New York Daily News (February 25, 2013) had this to say about Barghouti: “skilled as a propagandist, he piles falsehood upon falsehood to present Israel as relentlessly oppressing the Palestinians in violation of human decency, and to hold Israel exclusively responsible for the ills afflicting them.”

It is apparent that Barghouti and the BDS movement seek to delegitimize the Jewish state and bring about its demise. The “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees to Israel is a formula devised to bring about an end to the Jewish state. Jewish refugees from the Arab states, more numerous than the Palestinians, were settled in Israel. Palestinian refugees should have been allowed citizenship in Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Instead, Barghouti’s Arab-Muslim brothers chose to use them as a political tool and Barghouti is doing no less.

Keep reading.

The Mystery of ISIS

An "anonymous" source goes inside Islamic State, at the New York Review of Books:

In ISIS: The State of Terror, Stern and Berger provide a fascinating analysis of the movement’s use of video and social media. They have tracked individual Twitter accounts, showing how users kept changing their Twitter handles, piggybacked on the World Cup by inserting images of beheadings into the soccer chat, and created new apps and automated bots to boost their numbers. Stern and Berger show that at least 45,000 pro-movement accounts were online in late 2014, and describe how their users attempted to circumvent Twitter administrators by changing their profile pictures from the movement’s flags to kittens. But this simply raises the more fundamental question of why the movement’s ideology and actions—however slickly produced and communicated—have had popular appeal in the first place.

Nor have there been any more satisfying explanations of what draws the 20,000 foreign fighters who have joined the movement. At first, the large number who came from Britain were blamed on the British government having made insufficient effort to assimilate immigrant communities; then France’s were blamed on the government pushing too hard for assimilation. But in truth, these new foreign fighters seemed to sprout from every conceivable political or economic system. They came from very poor countries (Yemen and Afghanistan) and from the wealthiest countries in the world (Norway and Qatar). Analysts who have argued that foreign fighters are created by social exclusion, poverty, or inequality should acknowledge that they emerge as much from the social democracies of Scandinavia as from monarchies (a thousand from Morocco), military states (Egypt), authoritarian democracies (Turkey), and liberal democracies (Canada). It didn’t seem to matter whether a government had freed thousands of Islamists (Iraq), or locked them up (Egypt), whether it refused to allow an Islamist party to win an election (Algeria) or allowed an Islamist party to be elected. Tunisia, which had the most successful transition from the Arab Spring to an elected Islamist government, nevertheless produced more foreign fighters than any other country.

Nor was the surge in foreign fighters driven by some recent change in domestic politics or in Islam. Nothing fundamental had shifted in the background of culture or religious belief between 2012, when there were almost none of these foreign fighters in Iraq, and 2014, when there were 20,000. The only change is that there was suddenly a territory available to attract and house them. If the movement had not seized Raqqa and Mosul, many of these men might well have simply continued to live out their lives with varying degrees of strain—as Normandy dairy farmers or council employees in Cardiff. We are left again with tautology—ISIS exists because it can exist—they are there because they’re there.

Finally, a year ago, it seemed plausible to attach much of the blame for the rise of the movement to former Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki’s disastrous administration of Iraq. No longer. Over the last year, a new, more constructive, moderate, and inclusive leader, Haider al-Abadi, has been appointed prime minister; the Iraqi army has been restructured under a new Sunni minister of defense; the old generals have been removed; and foreign governments have competed to provide equipment and training. Some three thousand US advisers and trainers have appeared in Iraq. Formidable air strikes and detailed surveillance have been provided by the United States, the United Kingdom, and others. The Iranian Quds force, the Gulf states, and the Kurdish Peshmerga have joined the fight on the ground.

For all these reasons the movement was expected to be driven back and lose Mosul in 2015. Instead, in May, it captured Palmyra in Syria and—almost simultaneously—Ramadi, three hundred miles away in Iraq. In Ramadi, three hundred ISIS fighters drove out thousands of trained and heavily equipped Iraqi soldiers. The US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter observed:

The Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight.

The movement now controls a “terrorist state” far more extensive and far more developed than anything that George W. Bush evoked at the height of the “Global War on Terror.” Then, the possibility of Sunni extremists taking over the Iraqi province of Anbar was used to justify a surge of 170,000 US troops and the expenditure of over $100 billion a year. Now, years after the surge, ISIS controls not only Anbar, but also Mosul and half of the territory of Syria. Its affiliates control large swaths of northern Nigeria and significant areas of Libya. Hundreds of thousands have now been killed and millions displaced; horrors unimaginable even to the Taliban—among them the reintroduction of forcible rape of minors and slavery—have been legitimized. And this catastrophe has not only dissolved the borders between Syria and Iraq, but provoked the forces that now fight the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen.

This is a great piece. Keep reading.

I only disagree on the question of our ignorance. It depends on whom you rely for information. Most mainstream analysts, at least those seen in outlets like the New York Times and CNN, are leftists. They're congenitally hindered by leftist cognitive dissonance. If you read people like Victor Davis Hanson, Ralph Peters, Dennis Prager, or Robert Spencer there's no confusion on the nature of the enemy. All one has to do is take a cold hard look at the problem. And one has to call up the moral resolve to confront evil face to face.

That's the problem we have with ISIS. It's no mystery.

How Far Down Can a Free Diver Go?

It's kind of freaky that I came across this story, at the New Yorker, from Alec Wilkinson, "The Deepest Dive."

Wilkinson mentions Natalia Molchanova, who as this post goes live is still missing in the Mediterranean. I blogged the story earlier, "Freewater Diving Champion Natalia Molchanova Presumed Dead."

And from his essay:

Modern free diving is a sport in which divers, on a single breath, descend hundreds of feet, into cold and darkness, and often pass out before they return. It is frequently described as the world’s second most dangerous sport, after jumping off skyscrapers with parachutes. There are eight disciplines, three of which are conducted in a pool; the rest are called deep disciplines. The pool disciplines are static apnea, which is holding one’s breath; dynamic with fins (swimming underwater as far as one can, sometimes with flippers or with a monofin, which looks like a mermaid’s tail); and dynamic without fins. The five main deep disciplines are free immersion, which involves pulling oneself up and down a rope in open water; constant weight, in which a diver wears fins and a small amount of weight; constant weight without fins; variable weight, in which a diver descends on a metal device called a sled and swims to the surface; and no limits, in which a diver rides a sled and is then pulled to the surface by an air bag. Competitions are not held in no limits or variable weight, because they are so dangerous; divers can only attempt records. No divers have died in free-diving competitions. (Death by free diving usually occurs when spear fishermen who dive alone stay down too long. A few years ago, one drowned when he speared a huge grouper that fled into a hole; the fisherman’s spear gun was tied to his wrist and he couldn’t get free.) Divers, however, have died trying to set records in no limits. The most famous case was that of a twenty-eight-year-old Frenchwoman named Audrey Mestre, who drowned in 2002, during a poorly supervised dive with her husband, when her air bag didn’t inflate, leaving her too deep to reach the surface.

The most prestigious discipline is constant weight—the diver must return to the surface with the weight that he or she wore to descend. The women’s record for constant weight is ninety-six metres, which took three minutes and thirty-four seconds. (The men’s record is a hundred and twenty-two metres.) For women, a hundred metres is a barrier something like the four-minute mile used to be, and the diver who is the first to accomplish the feat will have a prominent place in the annals of the sport. Only two women are thought to be capable of it. One is Sara Campbell, a British diver who lives in Egypt, and the other is Natalia Molchanova, a Russian who lives in Moscow. Campbell set the record of ninety-six metres in April, in the Bahamas, breaking Molchanova’s record of ninety-five, which had broken Campbell’s record of ninety. Five days after Campbell reached ninety-six metres, she dived to a hundred, returned to the surface, took two breaths, and passed out. (A safety diver caught her.) The rules governing record dives require that a diver remain conscious for sixty seconds after surfacing, so Campbell’s dive was nullified...

It's obviously a very dangerous sport.

More at the link.

Obama's Enduring Legacy of Appeasment, Staggering Debt, and Enormous Racial Animosity

From Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review, "What Obama Has Taught Us":

President Obama last week spiked the ball on the Supreme Court’s decisions to legalize gay marriage and to ratify the Affordable Care Act.

Yet it is difficult to see quite how Obama had much to do with these decisions — or, to the degree he did, that they are earth-shattering. He twice ran for president expressing opposition to gay marriage while emphasizing the religious element of holy matrimony, which, he argued, precluded same-sex marriages. Is he delighted that the Court ignored his prior views?

On the Obamacare front, all the Supreme Court did was to clean up the Affordable Care Act, in a postmodern ruling that the administration’s poorly worded law actually meant something other than what the text as written actually said. The Court’s intervention was an act of partisan salvation, not disinterested legal reasoning.

Obama’s trade pact passed only with Republican votes. Apparently free-traders in Congress wanted the deal more than they worried about the president’s taking credit for their eleventh-hour rescue of what otherwise would have been a strong rebuke from his own party.

Nonetheless, Obama still talks of his “change” legacy, as if altering something necessarily meant improving it. Pulling all U.S. peacekeepers out of Iraq certainly changed the dynamics there, as ISIS can testify. The current talks with Iran will change Iranian ideas about how best to get the bomb. Normalizing relations with Stalinist Cuba also changes — as in increases — that regime’s viability.

Nonetheless, Obama still talks of his “change” legacy, as if altering something necessarily meant improving it. Pulling all U.S. peacekeepers out of Iraq certainly changed the dynamics there, as ISIS can testify. The current talks with Iran will change Iranian ideas about how best to get the bomb. Normalizing relations with Stalinist Cuba also changes — as in increases — that regime’s viability.

Jimmy Carter was asked to evaluate President Obama’s foreign-policy record. He concluded that it was hard to identify any improvement in our relations with any nation since Obama took office, defining change as change for the worse. Carter for once is probably right. Some of our outright enemies — Vladimir Putin, for example — have changed by showing even more contempt for us than they did in 2008, apparently on the Munich pattern that appeasement wins, not praise for magnanimity, but rather contempt for obsequiousness. Hitler, remember, vowed to stomp on his benefactor, Neville Chamberlain, after the latter gave him what he wanted in 1938. “Worms,” the Führer scoffed of his appeasers.

Iran so far has repaid Obama’s indulgence by blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier in military drills, de facto running affairs in three other Middle Eastern states — Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen — and brazenly renouncing almost all the basic elements of prior nonproliferation understandings, from on-site inspections to cessation of enrichment to kickback sanctions in the event of noncompliance. Iran embraces change, and looks forward to a nuclear future.

Apparently, the theocracy sees Barack Obama and John Kerry as hell-bent changers, willing to achieve their own legacies at the expense of the interests of their country and its allies — and thus as bewildering and worthy of contempt in a world where leaders are expected to promote their own people’s interests. Expect the geriatric Castros to share the same contempt for American outreach, and to double down on their anti-Americanism and their ruthless suppression of freedom to add spite to the embarrassment of U.S. appeasement. They see U.S. recognition as a big change that will further empower their police state. What allies we have left in the Middle East seem either tired of the U.S. change or baffled by it.

What allies we have left in the Middle East seem either tired of the U.S. change or baffled by it — especially Israel, Jordan, the Gulf monarchies, and Egypt. All that can be said for a changing U.S. foreign policy is that our friends see the Iran deal as a framework for changing ideas about their own nuclear acquisition — on the logic that the institutionalization of American nonproliferation models makes it fairly easy for anyone to get a bomb. Not since Israel got the bomb has any other ally or friend of the United States gone nuclear. (China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea were hostile to the U.S. at the time of their nuclear acquisitions.) Obama may well change that trend too, as we see all sorts of former allies and friends. both in the Middle East and in the Pacific region. creeping toward becoming nuclear powers — fearing either that they are no longer protected by the U.S. or that, on Obama’s watch, too many crazy neighbors may go nuclear.

Our friends have come to resent American change, especially the Obama administration’s sense of self-righteousness that judges partners on impossible standards that it does not apply to enemies or neutrals, such as Iran, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority. Obama’s smugness turns old allies off — as by defining ISIS as a jayvee organization, or psychoanalyzing Putin as a class cut-up bent on a macho shtick when he gobbles up neighboring countries, or lecturing Israel on Obama’s rare insight on what is really in the Jewish state’s self-interest.

If one wants an exemplar of change-failure, then look to Iraq or Libya. The abrupt pullout of all U.S. peacekeepers changed postwar Iraq, just as, if we had left Kosovo in 2001 or South Korea in 1955, the result would have been utter chaos. The logical outcome of bombing Libya without worry about what would follow on the ground was ISIS’s beheadings and “what difference does it make?” lies about Benghazi. Libya and Iraq are the faces of change.

The Europeans are flummoxed...

Keep reading, if you want. VDH just speaks too much truth about this cluster of a faux-president.

What’s the Right Role for America in the World?

Ian Bremmer, professor of global research at NYU, has a new book out: Superpower: Three Choices for America's Role in the World.

I'm pretty well full up on books for the next few weeks, thankfully, but this one looks to make my list for late summer.

Bremmer's also a columnist for Time, where he's got a series of recent posts on international relations. See, "Quiz: What’s the Right Role for America in the World?"

Plus, "America’s New Path Forward: How the U.S. can fix its dysfunctional foreign policy":

Here’s a question: What role does President Barack Obama believe the U.S. should play in the world? His words and his actions tell different stories. Obama’s speeches often detail a vision as grand as anything Ronald Reagan ever offered about America’s timeless greatness and its leadership in the world. At other times, Obama focuses on pragmatism and the need to set hard priorities. At still other times, he stresses the burdensome costs of an ambitious foreign policy with an urgency we haven’t heard from Washington since the 1930s.

Words aside, Obama’s deeds suggest that he’s not acting in the world so much as reacting to crises as they appear. The eruption of the Arab Spring in 2011, for example, caught the White House flat-footed. Eventual support for pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt only opened a rift with Saudi Arabia, America’s closest Arab ally, that Obama is still scrambling to manage. In Syria, Obama threatened “enormous consequences” if President Bashar Assad employed chemical weapons on his country’s battlefields, only to back down and accept a Russian-brokered compromise when Assad went ahead and used those weapons on his own people. A crisis in Ukraine drew the President into a confrontation with Russia that stoked real conflict with little potential reward, beyond the satisfaction of defending a principle–and not even defending it very well.

But the U.S.’s foreign policy incoherence didn’t begin with Barack Obama. The intellectual drift and the growing gap between words and deeds dates back to the Cold War’s end. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s joint misadventure in Somalia, George W. Bush’s ill-considered wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the near constant mishandling of relations with Russia and the halfhearted efforts to both engage and contain a rising China have taken a heavy toll on America’s treasury, credibility and self-confidence.

That toll will keep rising. The best-funded, most heavily armed terrorist group in history still occupies large sections of Iraq and Syria–capturing the Iraqi city of Ramadi on May 17–and now inspires followers from West Africa to Southeast Asia. Russia’s defiant leader will likely up the ante in Ukraine. The Prime Minister of Israel–one of America’s closest allies–will continue to fight the White House over Iran. China is challenging U.S. naval supremacy in the South China Sea and its economic dominance everywhere else.

At the same time, the U.S. itself has changed. The next President will have fewer options than Clinton, George W. Bush or even Obama, because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the American public deeply reluctant to support any military action that might require a long-term U.S. troop presence. Without the credible threat of military commitment, the rest of our foreign policy tools become much less effective.

The world has changed too. Powerful allies like Britain, Germany, Japan and South Korea still care about what America wants, but they can’t create jobs and grow their economies without broader and deeper commercial relations with China. Emerging countries are not strong enough to overthrow U.S. dominance, but they have more than enough strength and self-confidence to refuse to follow Washington’s lead. The U.S. remains the world’s sole superpower, the only country able to project military power in every region of the world. Its cutting-edge industries and universities are second to none. But China is now the only country in the world with a carefully considered global strategy.

Listen to the next wave of presidential candidates, though, and you might think nothing has changed. “We have to use all of America’s strengths to build a world with more partners and fewer adversaries,” says Hillary Clinton. “If we withdraw from the defense of liberty anywhere,” warns Jeb Bush, “the battle eventually comes to us.” Marco Rubio tops them both: “The free nations of the world still look to America to champion our shared ideals. Vulnerable nations still depend on us to deter aggression from their larger neighbors. And oppressed people still turn their eyes toward our shores wondering if we hear their cries, wondering if we notice their afflictions.”

These and the other candidates rattle off long lists of foreign policy priorities, but they avoid any mention of the costs and the risks. They speak as if successful foreign policy depends mainly on faith in the country’s greatness and the will to use American power, with barely a nod to what the American public wants. They tell us America must lead–but they don’t tell us why or how.

Except in 1940 and 1968, presidential campaigns have rarely been fought over foreign policy....

*****

It’s not simply that America can no longer police the world. It’s that it has no right to force those who disagree with us to see things our way. Americans like to believe that democracy is so undeniably attractive and our commitment to it so obvious that others should simply trust us to create it for them within their borders. That’s just not the case. Some countries still want American leadership, but many around the world want less U.S. interference, not more. They love American technology, social media, music, movies and fashion. But they don’t much care what Washington thinks about how they should be governed, who their international friends should be and how they should manage their money.

This might sound like isolationism, a term that’s been the kiss of death in U.S. politics since World War II. But that word is an unfair dismissal of every legitimate concern Americans have about the obvious foreign policy excesses and costly miscalculations of their government. Those who want Washington to declare independence from the need to play Superman believe that the U.S. has profound potential that’s been wasted in mistakes overseas. Imagine for a moment that every dollar spent in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past dozen years had been spent instead to empower Americans and their economy. Redirect the attention, energy and resources we now squander on a failed superhero foreign policy toward building the America we imagine, one that empowers all its people to realize their human potential.

The New Israeli Government's War on BDS

From Caroline Glick, at FrontPage Magazine:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government is less than a month old, but it’s already apparent that it is different from its predecessors. And if it continues on its current diplomatic trajectory, it may do something that its six predecessors failed to accomplish. Netanyahu’s new government may improve Israel’s position internationally.

The stakes are high. Over the years, Israel has largely concentrated its efforts on developing the tools to contend with its military challenges. But as we have seen over the past decade and a half, Israel’s capacity to fight and defeat its enemies is not limited principally by the IDF’s war-fighting capabilities.

Israel’s ability to defend itself and its citizens is constrained first and foremost by its shrinking capacity to defend itself diplomatically. Its enemies in the diplomatic arena have met with great success in their use of diplomatic condemnation and intimidation to force Israel to limit its military operations to the point where it is incapable of defeating its enemies outright.

The flagship of the diplomatic war against Israel is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Participants in the movement propagate and disseminate the libelous claim that Israel’s use of force in self-defense is inherently immoral and illegal. Over the years BDS activists’ assaults on Israel’s right to exist have become ever more shrill and radical. So, too, whereas just a few years ago their operations tended to be concentrated around military confrontations, today they are everyday occurrences. And their demands become greater and more openly anti-Semitic from week to week and day to day.

Consider the events of the past seven days alone.

Late last week Israel fended off a major international effort led by Palestinian Authority Soccer Federation chairman and former terrorist chief Jibril Rajoub to expel it from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association. Not only is Rajoub a man with blood on his hands. The Fatah luminary is admired by the Israeli far-Left while also being a favorite of Qatar, the chief state sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Rajoub is sympathetically inclined toward enabling Hamas in Gaza to expand its presence in Judea and Samaria.

Before the government had a chance to sigh in relief that FIFA was settled, Britain’s National Union of Students voted to join the BDS movement. This means that the anti-Israel demonstrations and assaults that take place several times a week at Britain’s universities will now take place under the NUS banner.

Also Wednesday, the French telecom giant Orange’s CEO Stéphane Richard told reporters in Cairo that he wishes to cut off his contract with Israel’s Partner telecommunications company, one of Israel’s largest cellular telephone services providers.

Richard was apparently coerced into making his statement by the Egyptian BDS movement which has threatened to boycott Orange’s subsidiary in Egypt due to its contract with Partner.

Tuesday it was reported that last month the Dutch government issued a travel advisory to its citizens traveling in Israel. In an act of anti-Jewish inversion now common in the Western discourse about Israel and its enemies, the Dutch government warned that Jews in Judea and Samaria constitute a threat to Dutch travelers because they throw stones “toward Palestinian and foreign vehicles.”

In the US, the Anti-Defamation League reported that this past academic year there was a 38 percent rise in anti-Israel events on college campuses over the previous year. The number of BDS campaigns doubled over the previous academic year.

By ADL’s count, there were 520 anti-Israel events on campuses. BDS campaigns were initiated on 29 campuses.

At the UN, Tuesday “The Palestinian Return Center,” Hamas’s European chapter, was granted official status as a recognized nongovernmental organization by the UN’s Commission on NGOs. Now, thanks to the commission, Hamas terrorists can participate in UN meetings, have full access to UN facilities and wear their new, official UN badges.

Incidentally, the same commission rejected a request by ZAKA to receive the same status. ZAKA is an Israeli NGO that provides first aid and handles the remains of terrorism victims and victims of major disasters in Israel and worldwide.

Also at the UN, Leila Zerrougui, the envoy for children in armed conflicts, is pushing to get the IDF added to the blacklist of groups that harm children.

Boko Haram, Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban are among the current names of the list.

Wednesday Republican Sen. Ted Cruz sent a pointed letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemning Zerrougui’s actions. Cruz threatened, “Congress will have no choice but to reassess the United States’ relationship with the United Nations and consider serious consequences if you choose to take this action.”

In contrast to Cruz’s position, in his interview with Channel 2 broadcast Tuesday, US President Barack Obama indicated that due to the rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment and campaigns, if Israel doesn’t make unreciprocated concessions to the PA then the administration will have no choice but to join the anti-Israel UN bandwagon.

The time has come, then, for Israel to take the wheels off the wagon.

It's a Holocaust of moral inversion, yet still, Israel will win the BDS leftist-terrorists will lose. Thank God.

More.

America's Academies for Jihad

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali, at the Wall Street Journal, "A radical imam threatened me with death—and was later hired to preach in U.S. prisons. I was surprised, but I shouldn’t have been":

Less than a year after I moved to the United States in 2006, I was asked to speak at the University of Pittsburgh. Among those who objected to my appearance was a local imam, Fouad El Bayly, of the Johnstown Islamic Center. Mr. Bayly was born in Egypt but has lived in the U.S. since 1976. In his own words, I had “been identified as one who has defamed the faith.” As he explained at the time: “If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death.”

After a local newspaper reported Mr. Bayly’s comments, he was forced to resign from the Islamic Center. That was the last I would hear of him—or so I thought.

Imagine my surprise when I learned recently that the man who threatened me with death for apostasy is being paid by the U.S. Justice Department to teach Islam in American jails.

According to records on the federal site USASpending.gov and first reported by Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller, the Federal Bureau of Prisons awarded Mr. Bayly a $10,500 contract in February 2014 to provide “religious services, leadership and guidance” to inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Md. Ten months later he received another federal contract, worth $2,400, to provide “Muslim classes for inmates” at the same prison.

This isn’t a story about one problematic imam, or about the misguided administration of a solitary prison. Several U.S. prison chaplains have been exposed in recent years as sympathetic to radical Islam, including Warith Deen Umar, who helped run the New York State Department of Correctional Services’ Islamic prison program for two decades, until 2000, and who praised the 9/11 hijackers in a 2003 interview with this newspaper.

That same year, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism held hearings on radical Islamic clerics in U.S. prisons. Committee members voiced serious concerns over the vetting of Muslim prison chaplains and the extent of radical Islamist influences. Harley Lappin, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the time, said that “inmates are particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists,” and that “we must guard against the spread of terrorism and extremist ideologies.”

Yet it is not clear what measures—if any—were taken in response to those concerns.

Testifying in 2011 before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael P. Downing, head of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Counterterrorism and Special Operations Bureau, said that in 2003 it was estimated that 17%-20% of the U.S. prison population, some 350,000 inmates, were Muslims, and that “80% of the prisoners who convert while in prison, convert to Islam.” He estimated that “35,000 inmates convert to Islam annually.”

Patrick Dunleavy, retired deputy inspector of the Criminal Intelligence Division at the New York State Department of Corrections, said in testimony that prison authorities often rely on groups such as the Islamic Leadership Council or the Islamic Society of North America for advice about Islamic chaplains. Yet those groups can and have referred individuals not suited to positions of influence over prisoners. As Mr. Dunleavy pointedly testified: “There is certainly no vetting of volunteers who provide religious instruction, and who, although not paid, wield considerable influence in the prison Muslim communities.”

The problem isn’t limited to radical clerics infiltrating prisons. Radical inmates proselytize and do their utmost to recruit others to their cause. Once released, they may seek to take their radicalization to the next level...

More.

The Orwellian Obama Presidency

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is victory":

The humiliating denouement to America’s involvement in Yemen came over the weekend, when U.S. Special Forces were forced to evacuate a base from which they had operated against the local branch of al Qaeda. This is the same branch that claimed responsibility for the January attack on Charlie Hebdo and has long been considered to pose the most direct threat to Europe and the United States.

So who should Barack Obama be declaring war on in the Middle East other than the state of Israel?

There is an upside-down quality to this president’s world view. His administration is now on better terms with Iran—whose Houthi proxies, with the slogan “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, damn the Jews, power to Islam,” just deposed Yemen’s legitimate president—than it is with Israel. He claims we are winning the war against Islamic State even as the group continues to extend its reach into Libya, Yemen and Nigeria.

He treats Republicans in the Senate as an enemy when it comes to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, while treating the Russian foreign ministry as a diplomatic partner. He favors the moral legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council to that of the U.S. Congress. He is facilitating Bashar Assad’s war on his own people by targeting ISIS so the Syrian dictator can train his fire on our ostensible allies in the Free Syrian Army.

He was prepared to embrace a Muslim Brother as president of Egypt but maintains an arm’s-length relationship with his popular pro-American successor. He has no problem keeping company with Al Sharpton and tagging an American police department as comprehensively racist but is nothing if not adamant that the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” must on no account ever be conjoined. The deeper that Russian forces advance into Ukraine, the more they violate cease-fires, the weaker the Kiev government becomes, the more insistent he is that his response to Russia is working.

To adapt George Orwell’s motto for Oceania: Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is victory...

Perfect. Devastating. Just too honest, my goodness!

Keep reading.

Police Shootings in #Ferguson Entirely Predictable — Anonymous Agitation! And Eric Holder Agitation!

From Matthew Hennessey, at City Journal, "Springtime for Chaos in Ferguson":

#Ferguson 's got some 'splainin' to do!! RT @P4R4L3G4L: @ProgPoker So much for the "not one of the regulars" lie pic.twitter.com/eaOXXhCEmW

— ProgPoker (@ProgPoker) March 16, 2015

Prosecutors...said Jeffrey Williams had attended the demonstration the evening of the shooting and previous rallies. http://t.co/KvOCmZB2B6

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 16, 2015

Shortly before shots rang out at Wednesday night’s protest outside the Ferguson Police Department, injuring two officers and reviving fears of return to last year’s social unrest, the Twitter account of Operation Ferguson posted an ominous warning: “This will not end well tonight.” Whoever composed the Tweet was right. Exactly how they knew is an open question.

The Operation Ferguson Twitter account has 70,000 followers. It is run by Anonymous, the mysterious band of online vigilantes and mask-wearing anarchists that allies itself periodically with far-left causes from the Occupy movement to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks. To read the stream of anti-police invective on Operation Ferguson’s timeline is to get a sense of Anonymous’s goals in Ferguson—and beyond. A pair of cellphone photos of cops in riot gear is captioned “punk ass terrorists.” A picture of a young African-American facing off with the police is accompanied by text: “You’ve been killing kids like me for decades. You can’t stop the revolution.” Yet another tweet reads: “protestors have taken streets to usher in the last days of the brutal regime. Same thing happened in #Egypt. #BlackLivesMatter”

During last year’s protests in Ferguson, Anonymous pledged to protect demonstrators from “abuse and harassment” at the hands of police. Hackers affiliated with the group crashed Ferguson City Hall’s e-mail server and, using a favored tactic, threatened St. Louis County Police Department Chief Jon Belmar by posting his home address, telephone number, and photos of his family. “I’ve said all along that we cannot sustain this forever without problems,” Belmar told the media late Wednesday after the shooting. “We were very close to what happened in New York”—a reference to the assassination of two NYPD officers last December.

Anonymous is not the only far-left group that has tried to turn Ferguson into the American Bastille. As the Daily Beast and the Blaze reported last year, well-known Communist agitators flooded into town following the death of Michael Brown with the goal of keeping emotions high and the revolution roiling. But the most-effective left-wing activist in Ferguson has got to be Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

Last week, the DOJ released a report clearing Officer Darren Wilson of misconduct in Brown’s death—the left’s initial justification for its war on Ferguson’s cops. But by dismantling the myth that Wilson had murdered Brown in cold blood, Holder risked undermining the agitators’ casus belli. So he went the extra step of accusing Ferguson’s police and courts of widespread and systemic racism. The report charged that the financially strapped city thought of its black citizens as not much more than a revenue stream. In a press conference, Holder decried last year’s riots, claiming that “violence is never justified,” before going on brazenly to justify the violence: “[S]een in this context—amid a highly toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment, stoked by years of bad feelings, and spurred by illegal and misguided practices—it is not difficult to imagine how a single tragic incident set off the city of Ferguson like a powder keg.”

Holder’s claim is that while Darren Wilson didn’t murder Michael Brown, in a way, the entire system did. This type of racial grievance-fueling is like a shot of straight adrenaline to the agitators of Anonymous and their fellow travelers on the professional far left...

Keep reading.

And see Caleb Howe, at Truth Revolt, "'Yes, He Is A Demonstrator': Police Announce Arrest Of Ferguson Cop Shooting Suspect."

Islamic State Video Shows Israeli Arab Murdered by Child Jihadi

Another child murderer. They sure start them out young over there.

Watch at BNI, "Latest Islamic State (ISIS) video features a child executing an Israeli Arab, accused of spying for Israel."

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Islamic State Video Purports to Show Israeli Arab Slain by Child":

A new Islamic State video purports to show a child executing an Israeli Arab man accused of spying for Israel.

The more than 13-minute video was released on YouTube by the Islamic State’s propaganda arm, Al Furqan Media. It depicts a lengthy confession by a man who identified himself as Mohammed Said Ismail Musallam from Jerusalem, followed by scenes that show a child holding and firing a handgun edited together with others that appear to show the prisoner being shot in the head.

Emmanuel Nachshon, the spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, said his government was investigating the authenticity of the video. Israel’s intelligence agency didn’t comment.

Though Islamic State has long expressed enmity toward Israel, Mr. Musallam’s slaying, if confirmed, would mark the first time the Iraq and Syria-based extremist group has been known to have killed an Israeli citizen.

Last month, Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an interview with a man claiming to be Mr. Musallam’s father, Said Musallam, and he said his son wasn’t a spy. The senior Mr. Musallam, who lives in East Jerusalem, said his son had traveled to Islamic State-held territory last fall and had asked for money beforehand on the pretense that he would be studying at a college near Tel Aviv, according to the article.

“He left that morning and the next day, I tried to call him and the telephone was turned off,” Mr. Musallam’s father was quoted as saying. “I thought that maybe he was busy. After a week we got an email that he wanted to be a martyr and he was giving up everything in his life and his family.”

The newspaper quoted the father saying that he later learned that Mr. Musallam had been jailed for trying to escape to Turkey.

The video adds a new twist to Israeli politics only a week before hotly contested general elections, in which hard-line Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has campaigned on a platform of protecting the country from Islamists. Israel has largely stayed out of the conflict. But similar videos from Islamic State have drawn Jordan, Egypt, Britain and the U.S. deeper into the battle.

Tuesday’s video wasn’t the first appearing to show a child killer. Another released by the group in January purported to show a Kazakh child shooting two accused Kazakh spies in the back of the head.

The purported use of a child executioner adds a twist to a propaganda campaign that has repeatedly employed shock tactics to both attract potential recruits and frighten enemies.

Islamic State has released footage showing hostages and accused apostates and traitors shot with handguns and automatic weapons and public crucifixions. Others have been thrown from rooftops, stoned to death, burned alive or decapitated. It is all packaged with Hollywood-quality production values and action-movie flourishes.

The latest video featured a dramatic rendering by the prisoner, dressed in an orange jumpsuit, recounting and acting out his own story in a drawn-out confession. He describes himself as former firefighter in Jerusalem, is shown acting out his Israeli intelligence recruitment, training, deployment and subsequent capture as audio of his confession plays in the background.

More at LAT, "Family of slain Palestinian mourns, denies Islamic State's spy charge."

Obama Loves America — Just Not the One We Live In

From Kyle Smith, at the New York Post:

Rudy Giuliani thinks President Obama doesn’t love America. That’s not true. Obama surely loves America, though not the actual existing country. He is head-over-heels gaga for a fictional America, a notional America, an enlightened America, America with an asterisk.

This is a great country, potentially, if it ever grows up and learns a few things.

Whenever Obama praises America, especially in foreign lands, he is careful to append caveats that make it clear America should, as he once said in another context, get off its high horse. He doesn’t apologize, exactly, but he makes it clear that his overall image of America is of a morally shrunken, chastened land whose sins render it unfit to exert much authority in the world.

“There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,” Obama said in France.

We need “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” he said in Egypt, suggesting the US had not previously respected Muslims much, adding that “fear and anger” has “led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.”

In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the US had “used a nuclear weapon,” as though winning a war that Japan started was shameful.

Obama’s famous view of American exceptionalism — “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” — is curiously qualified: When you ask a mom whether she thinks her baby is cute, you expect to hear, “Of course!” not a reflection on the nature of subjectivity.

Sometimes, though, the automatic response, going with your gut, is the correct one: America really is exceptional. The data prove it. We routinely stand as an outlier in surveys of international attitudes, because we have unique features, and those features make us better than other countries. Somebody has to be the best country on Earth. It happens to be us.

Except it didn’t just happen. We are the oldest democracy, and the succeeding ones — our many imitators around the globe — were far more suspicious of freedom, individual rights and tipping too much of the balance of power to the people rather than an elite class.

America: Heck, yeah...

Keep reading.

ISIS and Obama's Summit on Countering Violent Extremism

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Copts and Kurds Know the Threat is More Than 'Violent Extremism'":

The White House hosts its Summit on Countering Violent Extremism this week, and Islamic State seems not to understand it wasn’t invited. The event is supposed to showcase President Obama ’s leadership against a threat he refuses to identify by name, but the entire world has been watching Islamist jihadists advertise the specific threat across a brutal weekend.

In Iraq Islamic State paraded in cages through the city of Kirkuk 17 captured Kurdish fighters whom it presumably plans to burn alive as it recently did a caged Jordanian fighter pilot. Kirkuk is on the crossroads of Kurdish and Sunni Iraq, and ISIS didn’t hold any of the crucial oil hub when Mr. Obama unveiled his anti-ISIS strategy in September. The Kurds are on the front lines against Islamic State, but the Obama Administration has been wary of sending them significant arms lest it offend the government in Baghdad that can’t or won’t protect the Kurds.

Meanwhile, the rising Libyan branch of Islamic State released a video showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. The Copts were kidnapped in Libya and killed as “A Message Signed With Blood To the Nation Of the Cross,” according to the video caption.

“Oh people, recently you have seen us on the hills of Al-Sham and Dabiq’s plain, chopping off the heads that have been carrying the cross for a long time, and today, we are on the south of Rome, on the land of Islam, Libya, sending another message,” declared a masked ISIS member.

These videos are intended to show a religious movement that is on the march, the vanguard of history. This helps win converts and intimidate Muslims who might otherwise resist. The longer Islamic State appears to be advancing despite Mr. Obama’s promise to “degrade and destroy” it, the wider its appeal becomes.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi responded to the murder of the Copts with bombing raids against ISIS bases in Libya, and he urged the U.S. coalition to expand its operations to North Africa. Like the Kurds and King Abdullah in Jordan, Egypt knows the real threat and understands the need to step up the fight against Islamic State...

Obama White House Refuses to Identify Egyptian Beheading Victims as Christian

Is there a moral fiber left in this government? Indeed, in this country?

It's going to take more than a few conservatives on the right to get something to register here. The terrorists announced that they would take "Rome." Their ultimate target is the "Christian nation" of America.

Here's the statement, "Statement by the Press Secretary on the Murder of Egyptian Citizens" (at Memeorandum).



And at Atlas Shrugs, "White House Refuses to Call 21 BEHEADING Victims Christians while Egypt launches airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Libya for savage beheading of Christians killed for their faith."