Displaying posts published in

July 2016

Germany: “Because I am a Muslim”: Media cover-up as Afghan smashes up church By Robert Spencer

And the first thing Western leaders will say is, “No, you did not actually do this because you’re a Muslim. You did this because you’re poor, or disenfranchised, or discriminated against. We need to give you a job and some cash, and all will be well.”https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/germany-because-i-am-a-muslim-media-cover-up-as-afghan-smashes-up-church

The second thing they will say is, “More migrants. Bring us more!” The mainstream media, by covering up such incidents, aids in the migrant importation enterprise by keeping the public as ignorant as possible about the devastation the Muslim migrants are causing.

Because I am Muslim

“‘Because I am a Muslim’: Media cover-up in Germany as Afghan smashes up church,” Diversity Macht Frei, July 29, 2016:

It happened a week ago, but the police kept quiet about the incident and the church management did not file a complaint, it has only just come out: last Friday a 19-year-old Afghan stormed into the Versöhnungskirche [Church of Reconciliation] at around 7.20 pm in an open community evening in the Eilbek district of Hamburg. He threw chairs and benches around, kicked over a Bible stand, splintered the glass and threw hymn books onto the ground. According to an eye-witness, the church-goes present were very afraid and let him continue his destruction. No wonder, he was wearing swirling Islamic dress, which might have hidden a suicide belt.

The Muslim did not speak during his destructive rage and also had no connections to Salafists, therefore the State Protection department of the state criminal prosecution agency assumes there was no “Islamist” motive.

…Eyewitness Peter H, who sent PI the photo of the Afghan attacker, reports that he asked the Muslim in front of the church why he had done it as he ended his affray. The Afghan then screamed the answer: “Because I am a Muslim!”


Jihad Report
Jul 23, 2016 –
Jul 29, 2016
Attacks 48
Killed 409
Injured 700
Suicide Blasts 9
Countries 13

Domesticating Donald- What’s Not to Like? By David Solway

One notices that when the current nomination cycle began, Donald Trump was more often than not referred to by his full name: Donald Trump. Or by his surname: Trump. As time went by, his iconic sobriquet began to be used on a regular basis, generally in a not unkindly way: The Donald, as if he were a reified entity, a theatrical performance, or even a sort of force or condition, like The Weather. Now he is increasingly addressed simply as: Donald. The outsider, the mogul, the thespian has become a household guest, someone many of us know—with the exception of his enemies or professional skeptics—as a friendly and companionable figure. This is the other “nomination” that has occurred.

Despite the media hype painting him as an unprincipled opportunist, it appears that he has gradually earned the trust of millions of voters, including the initially undecided. That is, he has become Donald, familiar, admired and likeable.

Indeed, what’s not to like?

He has solemnly promised to fix America’s porous border situation and put paid to the violence and fiscal burdens that attend the vast influx of illegal migrants among ordinary, tax-paying Americans.

He has thrown down the gauntlet before the Islamic terror industry, vowed to halt the flow of “Syrian” refugees into the country, and pledged to set up screening mechanisms to repair a broken immigration system and weed out the carriers of an ideology hostile to the preservation of a free and democratic society.

He has presented himself as the law and order candidate in a nation careening toward anarchy in the streets and open war on the police, which has put every citizen at risk.

He has expressed his contempt for political correctness, a species of evasion and outright lying that is weakening the cultural sinews of the nation and its ability to defend itself against a host of enemies, internal and external.

He is committed to restoring an enfeebled military to its former status as the world’s mightiest fighting force. Additionally, he will honor and support America’s veterans, left to malinger by the Obama administration.

He has promised to renegotiate unfavorable trade deals that have left America at a competitive disadvantage, cost millions of jobs, and led to the gutting of the blue collar, middle class and small entrepreneurial strata of society.

He has vowed to replace globalism with Americanism and to require NATO allies to pay their fair share for defense rather than rely on continued American largesse to make up for shortfalls. Who respects a sucker?

He has promised to end the disaster of Obamacare, to tackle the national debt, to revitalize American manufacture, and to open up a restrictive, dumbed-down, “assembly line” educational system.

Considering this bordereau of serious and meaningful pledges, what’s not to like?

Trump—sorry, Donald—enjoys four distinct advantages over all other political actors on the national stage. He is not a beltway politician, which means he has not been corrupted by the perks and privileges so dear to the political elite. He is self-funded and therefore not beholden to major donors and lobbyists. He is a hands-on person, who pays attention to detail, where the devil is said to live, which accounts for his efficiency in keeping the devil’s handiwork of distraction and error at a minimum. And he possesses the ability to spot talent, to put the right people in place to ensure the success of his various projects. Donald is now “Donald” because he has become a member of the American family.

The Munich Shooter Is Driving the Mainstream Media Nuts By Steve Chambers

Ali David Sonboly, the young man who shot up Munich last week, killing 9 mostly young people and wounding dozens of others, is driving the mainstream media nuts. It’s so bad, they can’t even decide what they want to call him. Is it Ali David Sonboly, or David Ali Sonboy, or just David Sonboy, as the primly and properly PC BBC tried to have it?

But now it’s really getting confusing. As this article from the Mirror, among many others, now reports, Sonboly “reportedly saw it as an ‘honour’ that he had the same birthday as the Nazi leader [Hitler] – April 20,” “was proud to be a German-Iranian ‘Aryan,’” and “felt ‘superior’ to those of either [Turk or Arab] origin.” These discoveries greatly aggravate the already severe disorientation that the MSM has suffered over his motives. It seems that some among them think Sonboly was a neo-Nazi Irano-Aryan acolyte of Breivik – anything, please, but a Muslim.

So, was this young man just a “lazy” and “chubby” misfit who moved from depression to derangement and then obsession with mass murder for fascist reasons, or was he acting out of some influence of radical Islam? Or aren’t both possible?

Let’s go back to the Mirror’s points and unpack them, particularly for the benefit of those in the MSM who have delicate sensibilities about all things Islamic and Muslim and who avert their eyes from anything critical of their precious pet community. Here are some rather simple points from Islamic history.

Islamism, the revivalist version of Islam supported by large numbers of Muslims worldwide, borrows heavily from both communism and fascism. Eric Hoffer explained all that back in the 1950s. More explicitly, there were close historical alliances between the Nazis and the radical Muslims of the day. Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, had ties to Hitler, helped Himmler recruit Muslim troops for the SS, and collaborated with the Nazis on paramilitary operations in the Mideast. In recent times, Muslim clerics have praised the Nazis’ extermination of Jews even while trying to deny the Holocaust. At the same time, the Iranian government has regularly indulged in Holocaust denial while holding Israel and Jews to be anathema. It should therefore not be surprising that someone proud of his Muslim heritage should also feel proud of sharing a birthday with Hitler – while still having nothing the do with the bête noir of the Left, the political “far Right.”

Turkey’s Tradition of Murdering Christians by Robert Jones

Turkey’s countless agreements with Western organizations do not seem to have reduced the hatred for Christians there.

In Turkey, it is “ordinary people” who murder or attack Christians, then the judiciary or political system somehow find a way of enabling the perpetrators to get away with the crimes. Most of these crimes are not covered by the international media and Turkey is never held responsible.

While Muslims are pretty much free to practice their religion and express their views on other religions anywhere in the world, Christians and other non-Muslims can be killed in Turkey and other Muslim-majority countries just for attempting peacefully to practice their religion or openly express their views.

“Multiculturalism,” which is passionately defended by many liberals in the West, could have worked wonders in multi-ethnic and multi-religious places such as Anatolia. But unfortunately, Islamic ideology allows only one culture, one religion, and one way of thinking under their rule: Islam. Ironically, this is the central fact these liberals do not want to see.

On 26 July, the northern French town of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray witnessed a horrific Islamist attack: Two Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists killed an 85-year-old priest, Jacques Hamel, in his church during Mass. Two nuns and two churchgoers were taken hostage.

The terrorists, who had pledged allegiance to ISIS and, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, slit the throat of the priest and captured the bloody episode on video, according to a nun who escaped the assault.

Such Islamist attacks might be new to EU member countries but not to Turkey. For decades, so many innocent, defenseless Christians in Turkey have been slaughtered by Muslim assailants.

Christians in Turkey are still attacked, murdered or threatened daily; the assailants usually get away with their crimes.

In Malatya, in 2007, during the Zirve Bible Publishing House massacre, three Christian employees were attacked, severely tortured, then had their hands and feet tied and their throats cut by five Muslims on April 18, 2007.

Nicola Sturgeon, how welcome are Jews in Scotland?

August is festival month in Edinburgh. A massive celebration, delivered through a collective of independent arts and cultural festivals. Just one of these, the ‘Edinburgh Festival Fringe’, is the largest arts festival in the world.

At the ‘Fringe’ event this year, scheduled for August 17, is the ‘International Shalom Festival’. Described as a one-day celebration bringing together Jews, Arabs, Christians and other minorities, that all co-exist together peacefully in Israel. Yet once again, as Israeli artists perform inside Scotland, demonstrations are being arranged in protest.
Edinburgh protests

As far back as 1997, during the Oslo peace talks, antizionists attacked Israeli performers at the festival. In 2008 the Jerusalem Quartet concert was disrupted, in 2012 it was the turn of the Batsheva Dance Troupe. In 2014, anti-Israel activists called on the venue to cancel a show with Israeli performers, and local police forced the venue to incur additional security costs. In turn, the venue demanded additional funds from the performers.

So in 2015, Haaretz reported that for the first time in years, Israeli performances were not hosted at the festival at all. This silencing of the Israeli voice is celebrated as a victory by the anti-Israel activists. The voice that seeks dialogue and accommodation is being silenced.

The festival is not the only place in Scotland such opposition is seen, less than two years ago a worker at an Israeli cosmetics stall in Glasgow had a ‘burning liquid’ thrown at her. The university space is also rabid, with events being called off due to protests, and Jewish students at universities are “denying or hiding” their identity because of discrimination. These events, including the protests at Edinburgh, are all connected.

Yet here is a simple fact. Israel is by far the most diverse nation in the Middle East. Despite the accusations of the protesters, there is not a single nation in the region that is as free, as democratic, as liberal or as diverse as Israel. Not one. What else sets it apart from all of its neighbours though, is another simple fact. It is the only nation in the world that is Jewish.

According to the 2011 census, there are just under 6000 Jews currently living in Scotland and this year marks 200 years since the first Jewish congregation was founded, ironically in Edinburgh. But in reality, how welcome are the Jews in Scotland? When I use the word ‘welcome’, I don’t refer to the lack of a Hitlerite doctrine, or wish to gauge whether gangs of antisemites seek out symbols that adorn Jewish houses to begin targeting the inhabitants. I simply ask how free are Jewish people to celebrate their Jewish identity publicly?

Which brings me back to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The protesters suggest that Israeli money is funding the Shalom Festival and then embark on a sickening exercise to follow ‘Jewish money’, from the organisers back to the embassy of the only democratic nation in the Middle East.

So what is this protest, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish? Well primarily, it is clear that the protest is anti-peace. The essence of the Shalom Festival is co-operation, the diverse and inclusive nature of Israel. And support for dialogue, the underpinnings of the international position over a two state solution. What the protesters are standing against isn’t a settlement or Israeli army action, but rather a core element of Jewish belief – Zionism. The very existence of Israel.

Labour Life Peer Lord Livermore on Israel

‘My Lords, I wish to use the short time available to argue for a better understanding of Israel. This task is urgent because we see now a disturbing resurgence of anti-Zionism that is bordering on the antisemitic, particularly, I regret to say, in sections of the left in British politics.

Israel is not of course above criticism. It is right that where necessary we should be critical of Israeli policy, conduct and behaviour.

But too often this legitimate criticism of specific actions taken by Israel obscures the reality of Israel. When this reality is not heard, it creates a space for those with uglier motivations to build support for grotesque analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa or even Nazi Germany.

I fear that on the left today what is in jeopardy is support not just for the conduct of Israel but for the concept of Israel. We see senior figures praising as friends those who are committed to the violent destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Indeed, we now have the perverse situation where people who consider themselves to be progressive oppose Israel in the belief that they are standing up for liberal values and human rights, but in doing so side with totalitarian Islamist regimes that abuse human rights and prohibit basic liberties.

I believe that it is the duty of progressives to stop the slide from opposition to specific policies of Israel towards opposition to the very existence of Israel. I want us to make the progressive case for a country where women have the right to vote, dress as they wish and say what they wish in a region where, too often, they are segregated and subjugated; for a country that is committed to the free practice of religion for all in a region where religious minorities are frequently suppressed and persecuted; for a country where gay people are not discriminated against, tortured, detained or executed, as they are almost everywhere else in the region; and for a country with a free press, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and strong trade unions, all lacking in almost all neighbouring countries.

There is nothing progressive about siding with those who oppose the very values that we as a society strive to represent, and there is nothing progressive about seeking to extinguish a beacon of democracy, modernity and pluralism in the Middle East.’


The next U.S. president will confront a deeply unsettled world, from a Middle East in turmoil to a Europe struggling to contain an outbreak of terror attacks. Russia is expanding its influence and challenging its neighbors. China is flexing its powers both militarily and on the trade front. With many Americans weary from more than a decade of war, a miscalculation on any of these pressure points could have combustible consequences. Here’s a look at where the two candidates stand on foreign policy.
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has sought to expand its power and international clout in recent years, often in ways that have heightened tensions with the U.S. Russian hackers have penetrated networks all over the world, including the highest levels of the U.S. government. Russia has also threatened numerous neighbors in recent years, backing separatists in eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea in 2014.
Donald Trump I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia—from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.— April 27 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has floated the idea of creating a new alliance with Russia, saying a reset of relations is necessary to help ease tensions in Syria and elsewhere. President Putin has said complimentary things about Mr. Trump, which the GOP candidate has said expresses good faith. The perceived warmth between the two men, as well as the close ties between Moscow and some of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, have led some in the U.S. to posit that a Trump presidency would be a boon to Mr. Putin.
Mr. Trump has rejected the assertion by some Democrats that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s network and leaked emails in an effort to help the GOP nominee. In July, he invited Russia to unearth some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state, a statement that alarmed lawmakers from both parties.
Hillary Clinton Well, my relationship with [Putin], it’s—it’s interesting. It’s one, I think, of respect. We’ve had some very tough dealings with one another. And I know that he’s someone that you have to continually stand up to because, like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can unless you do. — Jan. 17 debate in South Carolina »

Mrs. Clinton has called Mr. Putin a “bully,” and has described the relationship between the U.S. and Russia as complicated. During the 2008 presidential election, she said Mr. Putin “was a KGB agent, by definition he doesn’t have a soul.” Mr. Putin later responded by saying, “I think at a minimum it’s important for a government leader to have a brain.” As secretary of state, she worked to broker more cooperation between the two countries. In 2009, she posed with Mr. Putin for a photo-op in which they pushed a big, red “reset” button.
By the end of her tenure, however, she wrote a private memo to the president warning that relations with Russia had hit a low point and the “reset” in relations was over, according to people who saw the document. In reaction to Mr. Trump’s call in July for Russia to seek out her emails, a top foreign-policy adviser to the Clinton campaign said “this has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent.”
The U.S. and China have had a complicated relationship for decades, as both nations are economically entangled and seen as super powers in different regions of the world. The U.S. is frequently at odds with China on issues like trade and foreign policy, but U.S. leaders have often stopped short of attempting to punish the communist country for its behavior, fearful that it could make problems worse. China is also one of the few countries that has influence in some of the most repressive parts of the world, such as North Korea, and it also holds a tremendous amount of U.S. debt.
Donald Trump China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest jobs theft in history.— June 28 speech »

Mr. Trump has bashed China persistently from his opening speech as a candidate, describing it as one of the U.S.’s top adversaries, particularly when it comes to economic policy. Mr. Trump says he would label China a currency manipulator, crack down on hacking, and threaten the Chinese government with steep tariffs if it doesn’t agree to rewrite trade agreements.
He would also expand the U.S.’s military presence in the South China Sea as a deterrent to China’s territorial claims to artificial islands there. He said he would toughen rules against the theft of intellectual property and combat subsidies China offers to boost exports. He opposes the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade agreement which includes the U.S., Japan and 10 other countries.
Hillary Clinton Countries like Russia and China often work against us. Beijing dumps cheap steel in our markets… So I know we have to be able to both stand our ground when we must, and find common ground when we can. — June 2 speech in San Diego »

Mrs. Clinton has been a constant critic of China’s human-rights record. She has called the current U.S./China dynamic “one of the most challenging relationships we have,” but she has also said the two countries share a “positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.”
During her time as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton said she pushed hard for China to agree to new greenhouse-gas emission standards. She also gave a 2010 speech that focused on internet freedom and criticized China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan for having “stepped up their censorship of the internet.” The speech mentioned China 10 times. She was one of the U.S. officials in 2009 who launched an annual meeting between the U.S. and China focused on strategic and economic issues.
Europe and Brexit
The U.K.’s plan to leave the European Union is just the latest shift of tectonic plates there impacting everything from the economy to immigration. Some parts of Europe have never fully recovered from the financial crisis, and a migration surge from Syria and elsewhere has drawn different responses from different countries.
Donald Trump I said Brussels is a hellhole, and then all of a sudden it came out the attack took place in Brussels. I understand what’s going on around the world far better than these politicians do.— March 27 interview with ABC »

Mr. Trump has been sharply critical of European leaders for not doing more to combat the flow of terrorists across their borders, saying France and Belgium in particular have laws that made it difficult for national security officials to thwart recent attacks. He has said restrictions on gun ownership in these countries have prevented innocent civilians from protecting themselves during terror attacks.
Mr. Trump engaged in a testy exchange with then-U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron over Mr. Trump’s proposal to ban the entry of Muslims into the U.S. He lauded British voters’ decision to leave the European Union. He has also said Germany and other countries should pay the U.S. more money for military protection, or risk losing U.S. support.
Hillary Clinton The United States must work with Europe to dramatically and immediately improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism coordination. European countries also should have the flexibility to enhance their border controls when circumstances warrant. — Nov. 19, 2015, in speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton speaks frequently about supporting U.S. allies in Europe, marking a contrast with Mr. Trump. But she has also said Europeans should do more to monitor the flow of foreign fighters back to Europe from Iraq and Syria, saying it poses terror threats. She made more than 50 visits to European countries as secretary of state, and has numerous relationships with leaders and diplomats there. Mrs. Clinton warned against the U.K. exiting the European Union, as her campaign had said Europe needed to remain united and that the British voice is an essential part of the EU.
Immigration and Mexico
Immigration has emerged as one of the most divisive issues of the 2016 campaign, with Republicans reversing course from an earlier push to enact a bipartisan overhaul of immigration rules. Immigration from Mexico and Latin America has traditionally been a flashpoint in U.S. politics, but in recent months the focus has shifted to immigration rules for people fleeing places like Syria and other unstable regimes in the Middle East.
Donald Trump When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.— June 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mr. Trump has called for building a roughly 1,000 mile wall, financed by Mexico, to secure the U.S.’s southern border. Until this wall is built, he has promised to “impound” all remittance payments “derived from illegal wages” sent from people in the U.S. to Mexico. He wants to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and has also proposed deporting the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants believed to be currently living in the U.S. and enhancing penalties for people who overstay visas.
He has called for ending “birthright citizenship,” which is the legal process for granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. Mr. Trump has said he will overturn the North American Free Trade Agreement, in part because he believes Mexico is using it to build a huge trade surplus against the U.S.
Hillary Clinton I think it’s important that we move to our comprehensive immigration reform, but at the same time, stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that’s my priority. — March 9 debate in Miami »

Mrs. Clinton has called for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, including a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally, aside from violent criminals. She supports executive actions under the Obama administration that seek to protect millions of people from deportation, including young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children and parents of U.S. citizens. Mrs. Clinton used to say positive things about NAFTA but recently has been more circumspect, saying it helped some people and hurt others. Her main opponent in the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, hammered her for her past support of NAFTA, as has Mr. Trump.
President Barack Obama has tried to pull back the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq, but the country has splintered. Islamic State has taken advantage of bloody jostling between the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds and retained a foothold in Mosul for more than two years. Iran’s influence with Iraq’s government has complicated U.S. diplomacy, and Iraq’s security forces have proven incapable—and at times unwilling—to repel Islamic State on their own.
Donald Trump George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.— Feb. 13, during a GOP debate in South Carolina »

Mr. Trump has been critical of President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, saying it helped unleash a wave of instability in the Middle East that continues to sow chaos. Mr. Trump has said he opposed the invasion at the time, though critics have said his position on the matter wasn’t clear cut. He hasn’t specified what he would do to improve the situation in Iraq, though he has spoken frequently about working more closely with the Kurds.
Hillary Clinton The Iraqi national army has struggled. It is going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes. — Nov. 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton voted in 2002 as a senator from New York to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, a decision that opponents have used to attack her for years and that she has since apologized for. She visited Iraq just once as secretary of state, in April 2009. She has criticized the Iraqi national army for not doing more to secure the country and deter Islamic State, and praised Kurdish forces fighting in the north of Iraq. She has called for pressuring Iraq to “get its political house in order” and the creation of a national guard.
Perhaps no country in the Middle East is expanding its influence as quickly as Iran, playing a role in the conflicts in both Iraq and Syria. Comments from Iranian leaders about destroying the U.S. and Israel and its past pursuit of nuclear weapons have made it a U.S. adversary for decades. The Obama administration has joined with several other top nations to broker a nuclear agreement with Iran if the Middle Eastern country abides by a number of conditions, and this deal remains a divisive foreign-policy issue on the presidential campaign.
Donald Trump Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be. But if I’m elected president, I know how to deal with trouble.— March 21 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has been extremely critical of the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, saying the U.S. allowed Iran to access $150 billion in money that had been frozen. He has added that the White House received few concessions as part of the deal. He has proposed renegotiating the nuclear deal, though it’s unclear exactly how he would structure any agreement. He has called for doubling and tripling the sanctions the U.S. had historically placed on Iran as a way to force them toward more concessions. He has said he would “dismantle” the deal, but aides have said he would only seek to refine it. His precise plan is unclear.
Hillary Clinton I did put together the coalition to impose sanctions. I actually started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, sending … my closest aides to begin the conversations with the Iranians. — Feb. 4 debate in New Hampshire »

Mrs. Clinton has struck a tougher stance than Mr. Obama with Iran. She has said she supports the recent nuclear agreement, but she criticized the Iranian government for its treatment of sailors who were detained after allegedly drifting into Iranian waters. She has said Iran continues to violate U.N. Security Council resolutions through its testing of ballistic missiles, and she has called for new sanctions against the country.
Mrs. Clinton was in the Obama administration during a historic thaw of relations between the U.S. and Iran. Mr. Obama wrote letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Mrs. Clinton’s time in office, and she has taken credit for beginning negotiations. She was also part of a historic increase in sanctions against Iran during the early years of the Obama administration, which supporters say helped force Iran to negotiate on its nuclear deal.
Islamic State/Syria
When the terror network Islamic State, also known as ISIS, seized Raqqa in Syria in 2013, it set in motion a chain of events that reshaped how the U.S. and other countries view Muslims, confront terror, and interact with each other. Videos of gruesome beheadings and the extremist group’s use of social media to recruit and inspire acts of terrorism have upended decades of counterterrorism strategies, forcing U.S. and European officials to grasp for a new approach. The terror network’s geographic foothold is contracting but its ability to inspire terror attacks around the world makes it one of the world’s deadliest terror groups.
Donald Trump These are thugs. These are terrible people in ISIS, not masterminds. And we have to change it from every standpoint.— Dec 15, 2015, debate in Las Vegas »

Mr. Trump has said he won’t give a fully detailed plan to defeat Islamic State because it would take away the element of surprise. But he has said he would “bomb the shit” out of the group’s oil operations. He said it could take 30,000 U.S. troops to defeat ISIS in the Middle East, but he hasn’t committed to deploying a force of that size.
To deal with suspected terrorists, he has proposed changing international rules that forbid the military’s use of torture. He also proposed killing the family members of terrorists to serve as a deterrent to others. He has backed away from some of these comments amid a backlash from some current and former military officials—but not fully. On Syria itself, he has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is “bad,” he stopped short of calling for his ouster. A key part of his Syria strategy appears to be giving Russia more flexibility to stabilize the region, as he’s said Moscow could be better positioned to influence changes there than the U.S.
Hillary Clinton ISIS is demonstrating new ambition, reach and capabilities. We have to break the group’s momentum and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS. — Nov. 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton has said Sunni Muslims and Kurdish forces should play a bigger role in combating ISIS, and has also called for expanding U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to defeat the terror network. She has also called for combating Islamic State’s ability to use social media to recruit, train, and plan attacks, urging more cooperation from technology companies. She also has said the U.S. should play a bigger role in helping resolve the humanitarian crisis caused by a huge wave of migrants fleeing Syria.
The biggest difference between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama in this area is her push to create a no-fly zone over Syria, a move that would likely put the U.S. in direct conflict with Russia, which has bombed anti-Assad forces in the area. Mrs. Clinton has received criticism for comments she made in 2011 that suggested some U.S. officials from both parties viewed Mr. Assad as a “reformer.” She later said she was representing the opinion of others, not herself or the White House.
Israel and Palestinian territories
Chilly relations between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu have worsened in recent years, particularly over the White House’s nuclear agreement with Iran. The U.S. has traditionally had close ties to Israel, and this will be a major challenge for the next White House given all the instability in the Middle East.
Donald Trump When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.— March 21 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has advocated for more U.S. support for Israel, and worked to build bridges with Tel Aviv by slamming the nuclear deal with Iran. He made some in Israel nervous when he said he would work to remain neutral in any peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He later softened his position, saying it would be very difficult to remain neutral. In March, he gave a speech to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C., that helped to assuage some of their concerns about his commitment to their views. In his convention speech in Cleveland, he called Israel “our greatest ally in the region.”
Hillary Clinton We may not have always agreed on every detail, but we’ve always shared an unwavering, unshakable commitment to our alliance and to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. — March 21 AIPAC speech in Washington »

Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Trump’s approach to Israel, trying to align herself very closely with Israeli leaders in their push for security. She has said her relationship with Israeli security officials spans more than 25 years and she has defended steps the country has taken to protect itself from rocket attacks. She has called for boosting U.S. support for Israeli missile-defense systems. She also supports helping Israel with technology to detect tunnels that Hamas uses to send fighters and bombers into Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Islam and Muslims
The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks changed the way many Americans viewed Arab countries, and altered the lives of many unsuspecting Muslims living in the U.S. Over a decade later, the rise of Islamic State and the flood of Muslim migrants fleeing conflicts in the Middle East have created even more tension, with some calling for a rethink of the U.S.’s approach to the religion and others urging more cooperation.
Donald Trump Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that’s not going to have the kind of problems that we’ve had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers.— Republican debate, Jan. 15 »

In December, just days after a husband-and-wife team killed 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif., Mr. Trump proposed a “total and complete” ban on the entry of all Muslims into the U.S. until authorities “can figure out what is going on.” The proposal proved popular with many GOP primary voters, but sparked intense criticism from some Republican leaders and Democrats, who said it would be unconstitutional and impossible to enforce.
Mr. Trump has said the threats posed by Islamic extremists are too dangerous and that stark new measures must be put in place to protect the country. He has since backed off the blanket ban, suggesting some flexibility. “We’re going to look at a lot of different things,” he said in late May. “We have to be vigilant and we have to be tough and smart.” In July, speaking on “60 Minutes,” he said a Trump administration would ban entrants from “terror states and terror nations” and would engage in “extreme vetting” of Muslims seeking to come to the U.S. from other countries, a theme he reiterated in his speech at the Republican National Convention.
Hillary Clinton This approach is un-American. It goes against everything we stand for as a country founded on religious freedom. But it is also dangerous. — June 14 speech »

Mrs. Clinton has said banning the entry of Muslims into the U.S.���even the proposal of it–will alienate Muslim allies in the Middle East and harm U.S. relations. She has said the proposal is being used by Islamic State to recruit new terrorists. To help combat terrorism and better spot warning signs of radicalized youth, she said the government must do more to build alliances with Muslim community leaders in the U.S.

Merkel on the ropes: Thousands of German protesters take to the streets saying she ‘Must Go’ . by James Dunn

Thousands to gather in towns and cities across Germany today at 3pm
They are calling for her resignation over open door immigration policy
Comes after four brutal attacks leaving nearly a dozen dead in one week
Three of the attackers were among 1.1million who entered as refugees

Merkel’s premiership is hanging by a thread today as thousands gathered to call for her resignation while a key political ally dramatically withdrew his support over immigration policy.

More than 5,000 protested in Berlin and thousands more throughout Germany over the ‘open-door’ policy that many have blamed for four brutal terrorist attacks that left 13 dead over the last month.

The Chancellor faced a fresh wave of fury after it emerged that two recent terror attacks and a third killing were carried out by men who entered the country as refugees.
Despite the massive waves of criticism, Merkel defended her policy this week, dramatically proclaiming ‘we can do it’ as she pledged not to let the violent acts guide political decisions.



The power to see inside. (TY Atid-EDI & Dan) Israel’s Aspect Imaging develops small, affordable and innovative MRI scanners. Its non-claustrophobic WristView scans limbs (e.g. wrist and hand) and Embrace scans newborns. WristView has just received the European CE Mark, to add to its existing US FDA approval.

Good feelings can kill bacteria. (TY Nevet) Scientists at Israel’s Technion Institute have stimulated the feel-good center in mice and discovered that their immune cells were able to kill twice as much bacteria than those of non-stimulated mice. The results, published in nature medicine, could explain the placebo effect.

New treatment for cancer. (TY Atid-EDI) Israel’s Rosetta Genomics has received a US patent for its miR-34 treatments of p53-negative cancers including lymphoma, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, liver cancer, skin cancer, certain types of lung cancer, and others.

A better test for prostate cancer. Israeli founded Cleveland Diagnostics (CDX) is developing a technology and test kit that can eradicate inconclusive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests. CDX says it will save the $4000 cost per negative biopsy, currently necessary in 70% of current testing.

And another one. Israel’s Micromedic Technologies (part of Israel’s Bio-Light Life Sciences) reported positive results in a trial of its prostate cancer diagnosis solution. Its CellDetect technology was used to diagnose samples from 18 patients and healthy subjects, and both groups were accurately diagnosed.

Another step forward in fighting melanoma. Almost a year ago (see here) Tel Aviv University researchers found what triggers melanoma cells to become malignant tumors in the brain. Now they have uncovered an early warning of that event by detecting the brain’s inflammatory response to microscopic invading tumor cells.

Upgraded spine surgery robots. (TY Atid-EDI) Israel’s Mazor Robotics has launched FDA-approved Mazor X, “a transformative platform for spine surgeries”. Mazor’s current range guides surgeons in spine operations. The new platform also helps planning through to verification. Israel’s Medtronic has already bought 15.

Snack vegetables to replace fast foods. (TY Dan) Israel’s Origene Seeds is developing a range of snack vegetables which aim to replace fast food snacks. The “Sweet Drops” mini-size cucumbers and peppers have a long shelf-life and will be marketed in special packets as “Finger Food” for work, school or leisure.
http://www.israelagri.com/?CategoryID=404&ArticleID=1272 http://www.origeneseeds.com/