In the wake of journalist James Foley’s brutal beheading, a 22-year-old woman is vowing to copycat his execution and become the first female jihadist from the United Kingdom to kill a Western captive in Syria.

Khadijah Dare, originally from London, England, is married to a Swedish man and Islamic State fighter named Abu Bakr. The couple moved to Syria in 2012 and are currently living alongside the extremist militant group with their son, according to London’s Evening Standard.

Dare apparently writes under the Twitter name Muhajirah fi Sham (which means “immigrant in Syria”) to discuss her jihadist ambitions in Syria, though her account has recently been taken down. In a tweet, which has since been removed, Dare revealed her intentions, per The Independent:

“Any links 4 da execution of da journalist plz. Allahu Akbar. UK must b shaking up ha ha. I wna b da 1st UK woman 2 kill a UK or US terorrist!(sic)”.

The graphic video of Foley’s murder, released by the militant group this week, has refocused attention on foreign fighters streaming to join the Islamic State. The man in the propaganda clip speaks in a British accent and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said it is likely he is a British citizen.

Before moving to Syria, Dare was reportedly a regular at the Lewisham Islamic Center in southeast London, having converted to Islam as a teenager, the same mosque linked to Woolwich killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale who were convicted of the 2013 murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, the Evening Standard reports.

Trying to distance itself from Dare, the center said in statement, as reported by The Guardian:


On August 6, 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki . General Douglas MacArthur had expected to continue conventional bombing of Japan followed by a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” President Harry Truman was told that such an invasion could cost one million American casualties.He decided–against the advice of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and a number of the Manhattan Project scientists–to use the atomic bomb.

Emperor Hirohito announced Japans’s unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb.” The formal surrender agreement was signed on September 2, aboard the U.S. aircraft carrier Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay.

And that was the end of World War 2- the last war fought with the goal of total victory and unconditional surrender.

The Banality of Mass Public Executions in Gaza By Claudia Rosett

Just another episode of Hamas rule in Gaza, as — quoting Reuters here — “Hamas-led gunmen in Gaza executed 18 Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel on Friday, accelerating a crackdown on suspected informers after Israeli forces tracked down and killed the three senior Hamas commanders.”

How did these Hamas-led executions proceed? This from the New York Times [1]: “”Masked gunmen in matching black T-shirts and pants paraded seven of the suspected collaborators, handcuffed and hooded, to their deaths before a boisterous crowd outside a downtown mosque after the Friday prayer, in a highly theatrical presentation. Photographs showed a pair of militants leaning over a doomed man on his knees against a wall, and masses of men and boys cheering and clamoring for a better view.” (Reuters has a video clip here [2], including the crowd and the bloodied street).

Thus runs the course of “revolutionary justice” in Gaza — which is how this process was labeled on the website Al Majd, which is described by the Times as “managed by the Internal Security Service of the Hamas government that ran Gaza until June” (when the Hamas government morphed into the “National Consensus Government” of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah).

Were there fair and impartial trials of the accused? Were they provided with lawyers, permitted to mount a defense, treated with dignity? Was their right to privacy respected? Did the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross immediately pronounce themselves appalled? Did the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, decry this mass public use of the death penalty? Did the UN Relief and Works Agency, a megaphone for Gaza, even mention these horrific executions in its daily Situation Report [3]? Did UNRWA’s Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl, formerly of the ICRC, self-appointed arbiter of legalities in Gaza, issue an outraged denunciation of these mass executions?

You know the answer. No. There was none of that. This mass public execution of Palestinians, by Palestinians — according to Reuters, the third round of executions of suspected collaborators just this month — aroused no global outcry. The story played in the New York Times and on Reuters as a tale — albeit with gruesome touches — of Hamas defending itself against Israel. As the Times headline framed it: “Executions in Gaza Are a Warning to Spies.”

Yes, these executions are certainly a warning to spies. But how, precisely, are they less barbaric than, say, the executions of ISIS? Forget even a trace of humanity. Before a rowdy crowd, men in handcuffs and hoods are deliberately paraded by masked gunmen, herded against a wall en masse, and shot to death. For what? For alleged betrayal of a terrorist group that seized power in Gaza in 2007, in a bloody coup against other Palestinians, and uses schoolchildren and hospital patients as human shields for its attacks on Israel.


Connoisseurs of obtuse moral idiocy have long cherished The New York Times. Is there any other contemporary organ of opinion that so reliably combines the odor of sanctimoniousness with a seamless adherence to “progressive,” left-leaning orthodoxy? It’s not just the positions espoused by our former paper of record: it’s the combination of those echt correct opinions with the aura of smug self-satisfaction that makes the paper such a remarkable source of nausea-inducing pontification.

Today’s paper provides a particularly egregious example on its op-ed page (I mean the one at the back of the first section, not the one the Times has taken to running on its front page). The column in question is called “The Problem With ‘Evil’ [1].” It’s by Michael J. Boyle, an Associate Professor at La Salle University. Really, it is something special — though I should perhaps add that by “special” I do not mean “commendatory” but rather depressingly singular, as when educationists denominate the academically or intellectually deficient portion of the class as one of “special needs.”

Associate Professor Boyle’s column is about the world’s response to the beheading of the Sunni-loving jihadist James Foley [2] by ISIS barbarians. That’s not how Associate Professor Boyle puts. On the contrary, the burden of his column — as those knowing scare quotes around the word “evil” suggest — is to chastise us imperfectly enlightened folks from the use of “moralistic language” when we describe the knife-wielding pastimes of ISIS.

Not that Associate Professor Boyle is a fan of ISIS. He is on board with the “global condemnation of the insurgent group and its horrific tactics.” But he is alarmed that some of those who condemn separating Mr. Foley’s head from the rest of him should resort to the “moralistic language once used to describe Al Qaeda in the panicked days after the 9/11 attacks.” Got that? Those bad “panicked days” of yore, back when our reason was occluded, made us “moralistic” in our use of language. You remember: before 9/11 no one, near enough, had ever heard of al Qaeda. On September 12, 2001, most people — not people like Associate Professor Boyle, of course — would have described al Qaeda as an evil organization whose members were savage, theocratic barbarians that the civilized world should exterminate eftsoons and right speedily. Is that “moralistic”? Or merely, considering the existential threat posed by al Qaeda, commendably moral, as well as, let’s face it, justifiably pragmatic?

If you think that, you are, according to Associate Professor Boyle, insufficiently sensitive and imperfectly enlightened. What’s the worst thing a contemporary academic can say about someone? Yes, you got it. That “moralistic language” — you know, the impulse to describe ISIS as “evil” — is “an eerie echo” of . . . of who? Yes! It’s an “eerie echo” of “President George W. Bush’s description of the global war on terrorism as a campaign against ‘evildoers,’ . . .” Have you ever heard anything so outrageous! Imagine, calling the chaps who steered airliners into buildings tall and squat for fun and profit as “evildoers.” Have you ever heard anything so un-nuanced, so politically incorrect, so unbefitting an Associate Professor, or even a Distinguished Full Professor with a named chair?


ISIS, Obama, Progressive, Terrorism, Islamist, al Qaeda, Middle East

Stunningly (okay, maybe I am not as stunned as I could be), the Obama Administration’s State Department has succeeded in achieving the same stunted intellect toward the threats made by violent Islamists as was held by our government in the days before September 11, 2001. The critical mass moment came in the announcement that State Department rejects the Islamic State’s claim that is it at war with US.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The State Department downplayed comments from Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS) leaders that they are at war with America, arguing that their violence is not directed at any particular country or race.

“At a briefing Thursday, a reporter brought up anti-American comments from ISIL leaders: ‘I mean, even they are announcing, ISIL people in their message, whatever, the recorded message, other messages, that now we are in a war with America.’

“‘This is not about ISIL versus the United States,’ State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf objected. ‘They are killing anyone who gets in their way: Sunnis, Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Iraqis, Syrians, anyone who gets in their way — and now an American.'”

At almost the very same moment, The Washington Times reports:

“Sunni radicals with the Islamic State terrorist group have posted a number of tweets aimed at the citizens of Chicago, including a picture of an unidentified man on Michigan Avenue holding a paper with a handwritten Arabic message: ‘We are in your streets’…



· A new life-saving Israeli wound treatment has been proven “in action”.
· Israel’s revolutionary new hip-replacement device will never need replacing.
· The first Arab Bedouin co-operative is launched – in Israel of course.
· Israel wins the International Mathematics Competition for the first time.
· Two Israeli medical companies are launching on NASDAQ.
· Coins minted by the Jewish State 2000 years ago have been unearthed near Jerusalem.

Page Down for more details on these and other good news stories from Israel.


It is possible Operation Protective Edge could have been conducted with greater ineptitude. But it is not easy to see how.

Yes, I know. The title of this column will ruffle many feathers, especially while the cannons are still roaring.

But what is a concerned journalist to do when he sees the elected government of his country lurching from one predictable blunder to another? Show solidarity with a “policy” – for want of a better word – that has led to an unbroken succession of foreseen failure and fiasco? Pretend that policies leading inexorably to disastrous debacle actually reflect considered and circumspect statesmanship?

Anemic indecision

As I sat down to begin this column 36 days after the start of Operation Protective Edge, the Post posted this headline: “Security cabinet meets as dozens of Gaza rockets rain down on Israel.”

The first paragraph of the associated report read: “The security cabinet was… to decide Israel’s response to heavy rocket fire which rained down from Gaza throughout the day…. It remained unclear whether Israel would give the IDF the order to expand the operation or respond in a pinpoint manner to rocket fire in attempts to keep the conflict from spiraling out of control.”

In many ways this report documents the indecisiveness with which the campaign in Gaza has been conducted. After all, the breakdown of the cease-fire and renewal of Hamas’s bombardment was hardly a surprise. One hopes the event was foreseen and discussed by the esteemed members of our security cabinet. Surely, an appropriate response should have been prepared in advance and activated immediately with the renewal of fighting.

But even assuming some consultation was required before the planned response was implemented, it seems that little was decided, other than to persist with what has proven ineffective for subduing Hamas’s attacks.

Extreme ineptitude?

As if to underscore this very point, Hamas rained a record number of 170 missiles on Israeli targets the day the security cabinet met – and continued thereafter with no reduction.


Statements made by U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, after ISIS released videos showing their beheading of photojournalist James Foley, revealed that both seem to suffer not only from severe shortsightedness, but also from an acute case of willful blindness. Similar afflictions beset the U.S. political and military leadership and the media. The rest of Western world seems to suffer from the same problems.

All act surprised by the rapid advance of the ISIS, as well as its brutality. While the President described the beheading as “an act of violence that shocks the conscience,” Hagel announced: “Oh, this is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Really?

A cursory google search reveals similarly horrid images of jihadists beheading, stoning, stabbing, burning, lynching and other unimaginable forms of taking human lives by celebrating members of al Qaeda, al Shabab, ISIS, Hamas, and Hezbollah. ISIS’s release of the video of James Foley’s brutal murder was followed two days later with Hamas videos of summary executions in Gaza. Indeed, the credit for exploiting the Western media to publicize their jihadi savagery belongs to the PLO (see below). The common denominator of these and like-minded Islamist Sunni and Shia groups is jihad. Their brutality matches that of the Nazis.

Top: Palestinian lynched for alleged collaboration with Israel, 1992. Below: to entertain thousands of Gazans exiting the Mosque after prayer, Hamas, in a summary execution, shot 18 people in the public square, on August 22, 2014, for alleged collaboration with Israel (Reuters)

Yet, no American, European or other Western leader dared to identify the jihadist problem by its name.

Mr. Obama declared, “There has to be a clear rejection of these kind of nihilistic ideologies.” But the ISIS’s and other jihadists’ ideology is not “nihilistic.” Their ideology directs them to die while killing as many infidels as they can. The more they kill, the merrier will be their reward in heaven, they believe.

The Media Intifada: Bad Math, Ugly Truths About New York Times In Israel-Hamas War: Richard Behar ****

It’s a “media intifada,” notes Gary Weiss, an old colleague and one of the world’s top business investigative reporters. He is referring of course to the ongoing war in Gaza, where journalists working for American news outlets have, he says, “become part of the Hamas war machine.”
As more than a month has passed since Israel began its Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, it’s high time to dig through the carnage that many of my colleagues from major U.S. media outlets are leaving behind—especially the New York Times.
On August 11th, the normally Israel-averse Foreign Press Association in Israel conceded what those closely following the war coverage already knew: That Hamas has been intimidating foreign reporters. In a harsh statement, it condemned the terrorist group for “the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month.”

This is hardly surprising, as who can expect a terrorist group to treat reporters nicely—except perhaps many reporters themselves? But what is surprising is that New York Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren undermined her own newspaper—quickly denouncing the FPA’s statement. She said in a tweet that she wasn’t aware of any such harassed reporters, even though she concedes she spent only one week in Gaza herself during the height of the conflict. In an email to the FPA, she said that the FPA’s statement could be “dangerous” to the “credibility” of the foreign press who are covering the conflict. “Every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense,” she tweeted. [Boldface type hers.]

I agree that there’s a lot of nonsense being disseminated about Israel’s war with Hamas, and about the media role in the conflict. And I agree that there is a danger—if people believe that the media, including the New York Times, provides a fair picture of the war in Gaza. (I would argue it is not.)

Since late July, I’ve conducted an in-depth look at the credibility of the media coverage, plus interviews with military experts and some journalists covering the war. Among other things, I’ve discovered that the Times’ most important reporter in Gaza for the past few years has used the late Yasser Arafat as his profile photo on Facebook, and, in a second photo, praised the former Palestinian leader. This suggests that the Times may have less to worry about in terms of Hamas intimidation than others in the press corps. Indeed, this Times reporter’s parallel pieces for Qatar’s Al Jazeera since the war began can only be pleasing to the terrorists.

American Betrayal: Nuremberg and the Nazi-Soviet Pact : Diana West

“An overheard conversation between top Nazis Goering and von Ribbentrop set off the chain of events revealing to the public the existence of the Hitler-Stalin Pact’s “secret protocol,” which included evidence of Soviet war crimes committed in tandem with the Nazis. The Allies suppressed the document at the Nuremberg trials. ”

—Today is the 75th anniverary of the non-aggression pact between the Hitler and Stalin, the latter becoming (after Hitler attacked Stalin on June 22, 1941) the member of the “Big Three” known as “Uncle Joe.” In the commemorative essays discussing the twin dictators’ earlier alliance of August 23, 1939, which would be followed by Hitler and Stalin’s conquest of Poland the following month, the pact’s secret protocol that divided the nations of central and Eastern Europe between them is also mentioned. I have yet to see, however, any discussion of how that secret protocol became known to the public.

That disturbing story of near-suppression takes us past the war to the trials of the Nazi high command in Nuremberg — widely hailed the model of international justice. But what a morally rotten exercise it was, as war criminals (Soviets) sat in judgment of war criminals (Nazis) while war crimes (British and US) were occurring all around (Operation Keelhaul, the little known British-US-enabled “repatriation” from the West of millions of Soviet-claimed persons to death/the Gulag, was in full swing).

There, in a Nuremberg prison yard, a German defense lawyer by chance overheard top Nazis (von RIbbentrop and Goering) discussing the contents of the still-secret protocol, which offered evidence of Stalin’s guilt in committing “conspiracy to wage aggressive war,” one of the key charges against the German high command. With Stalin trying to blot out his alliance with Hitler from the record — with full support of his British and American allies — how did the secret protocol ever come to the world’s attention?

Here is what happened at Nuremberg, as discussed in Chapter 2 of American Betrayal, pp. 54-58.