Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Ramadan Bombathon 2014 Scorecard

Picture of the Week

Ramadan Bombathon 2014:  Don't Forget to Stop by the Caliphate Gift Shop for Souvenirs
Once again, it was a Ramadan to remember, with the Religion
of Peace crushing the competition and doing what it does best. 
This year's season for fasting and blasting produced a
record-breaking 2,429 dead bodies across 27 different countries.  
Ramadan Bombathon
 2014 Scorecard
Because, if you think all religions are the same,
then you haven't been paying attention
In the name of
The Religion
of Peace
In the name of
ANY Other
By Way ofAnti-Muslim
Hate Crime
Terror Attacks
Suicide Bombings
Dead Bodies

(Not all attacks are immediately posted on TROP)

* 2014.07.03 - A Myanmar Muslim was killed by Buddhists on rumor of a rape. (A Buddhist was also killed by Muslims during the same riot).

*2014.07.02 - An Arab teen was murdered by Israeli Jews following the kidnap and murder of three Jewish teens.
Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace "Mohammed is God's apostle.  Those who follow him are harsh
 to the unbelievers but merciful to one another"
  Quran 48:29

2014.07.28 (Katarko, Nigeria) - Pro-Sharia militants throw explosives into homes and shoot those trying to flee.
2014.07.28 (Sheikh Zuwaid, Egypt) - A 9-year-old girl dies from shrapnel produced by an Islamist rocket.
2014.07.28 (Gaza, Pal. Auth.) - Nine children are among ten killed when a Hamas rocket falls short.
2014.07.28 (Kano, Nigeria) - A female suicide bomber detonates at a gas station killing three other women lining up to buy kerosene.
2014.07.28 (Gujranwala, Pakistan) - A woman and two young girls belonging to the Ahmadi religious minority are burned alive after an angry mob sets fire to their home over alleged 'blasphemy'.
2014.07.27 (Hong, Nigeria) - Thirty villagers are slaughtered randomly by Boko Haram gunmen.
* Sources for individual incidents can be provided upon request.

Sweden: Policeman caught by violent mob inside Muslim area left alone by colleagues for fear of riots

Sweden: Policeman caught by violent mob inside Muslim area left alone by colleagues for fear of riots


The decision to leave their colleague alone in the hands of these barbarians was probably taken by leaders inside the police department. What I heard from a usually well-informed source is that the quickest way to make a career inside the police force is to be pro-multicultural and pro-appeasement, and to avoid riots at all cost. After this, how can the Swedes trust that the police will protect them? And with 31 firearms per 100 people, how can the Swedish authorities trust that their voters and taxpayers will not think of ways to take the law in their own hands one day? This is a typical example of the “courageous” leaders of the Swedish establishment — translated from HD:

(Photo from previous riots in Koppergården)


(Photo from previous riot in Koppergården, where one policeman was beaten with his own baton)
The officer ended up alone with the mob in Koppargården and drew his weapon. But reinforcements chose not to go in for fear of starting a riot. The incident has led to a conflict between local police officers and police management. …
Two policemen pursue a motorcycle driver who is driving recklessly. A private car meddles in and acts as a “block” by driving toward the police car, ostensibly to ram it, and thus prevents the police officers from arresting the motorcycle driver.
Both the car driver and the motorcycle driver are known to police.
For after this initial incident, the police drive into a green area. One police officer leaves the police car on foot to chase the car driver.
The police officer is immediately surrounded by a rapidly growing mob of between 50 and 70 persons who make threats. The policeman, who calls for reinforcements, receives verbal death threats and taunts, and is spit in the face.
Two men in the mob are described as extra aggressive; they make threatening gestures while threatening to kill the police officer. They refuse to follow the policeman’s orders and have their hands in their jacket pockets (as if hiding something). The officer draws his service weapon to deter and repel a possible attack.
The atmosphere gets more intense. The officer runs a few steps. He waits for more police officers to arrive on the scene.
Ten police patrols, mainly from Helsingborg, have been called to the place. But all patrols gather a bit north of the area, at the intersection Tullstorpsvägen-Stenorsvägen.
The leader of the patrols chooses to stay out at Tullstorpsvägen. None of those responsible that Landskrona Posten (newspaper) managed to reach, are able to tell exactly why police reinforcements did not enter Koppargården and rescue their colleague. But according to Landskrona Posten’s sources, the police were afraid of provoking a riot by their presence.
The source says that the risk of violent riot was imminent at the time, and this is also the assessment of police management in Landskrona. …
Critical voices within the police have declared that this means that the criminals feel that they can make the police flee from an area. Several key people in Koppargården are identified as serious criminals linked to organized crime.
A preliminary investigation on the events in Copper Farm is in progress.


Thanks to BNI for this

Traces the history of PLO/Fatah, now better known as the 'Palestinian Authority,' the organization that will govern a future Palestinian State. The video shows how PLO/Fatah emerged from the German Nazi Final Solution. Hajj Amin al Husseini, father of the Palestinian Movement, creator of Fatah, and mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, was co-director with Adolf Eichmann of the death camp system that exterminated between 5 and 6 million European Jews in WWII.

Gaza Flotilla Terrorists Set Sail Again

Gaza Flotilla Terrorists Set Sail Again


Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.

mavi marmara 

Apparently more than willing to pour gasoline on an already raging fire, an anti-Israeli Turkish relief organization, IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation, is organizing a “Freedom Flotilla II” to bring “humanitarian” supplies to the Gaza strip. The IHH is the organization responsible for the last attempt to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza in a self-inflicted disaster that saw nine Hamas-affiliated terrorists killed by Israeli commandos, who were attacked when they attempted to board the Mavi Marmara. IHH chairman Bulent Yildrim warns that this time, the flotilla will be accompanied by Turkish Navy vessels to “protect us from any potential attack.”

As of now, no firm date has been set for this latest effort to incite a violent confrontation with the Jewish State, but Yildrim insists that once the necessary permit from the authorities in Ankara is approved, the activists will set sail. Yildrim is inviting activists who participated in the 2010 trip to join the cause. The military component is based on a demand by Yildrim  that the Turkish government provide protection for its own citizens.

The move reflects the increasing deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations, already severely damaged by the 2010 attempt by the Freedom Flotilla I to challenge Israel’s right to block weaponry from entering the Gaza strip.

After the incident aboard the Mavi Marmara, a 2011 UN report by the Palmer Commission concluded Israel was within its legal rights to form the blockade. The report further noted that the naval blockade “was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law,” that “the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade,” and that there were “serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.”

And while the report also concluded that Israel’s boarding of the Mavi Marmara was “excessive and unreasonable,” it noted that “Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection.” The panel further recommended that those involved “should consult directly and make every effort to avoid a repetition of the incident.”

That isn’t likely to happen. After the incident and subsequent report, Turkey ejected Israel’s ambassador and recalled its own, but refrained from severing economic ties. But on July 19, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of “barbarism that surpasses Hitler,” regarding its military incursion into Gaza. He further insisted the Jewish State was guilty of using “disproportionate force” that has “derailed efforts to normalize Turkish-Israeli ties,” according to the Associated Press. Erdogan is running for the presidency in elections that will be held next month.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Harold Rhode, a senior fellow at the New-York-based Gatestone Institute and a former adviser on Islamic affairs in the office of the American secretary of defense, insisted that the “real issue” in the current conflict is the effort by Turkey and Qatar to throw their support behind the Muslim Brotherhood and its spawn, Hamas. “Erdogan has been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood long before he was prime minister,” Rhode said further explaining that Erdogan “is doing whatever he can to help Hamas.”

One could make the case the Obama administration is doing the same thing. According to the Times of Israel that nation’s unanimous rejection of Secretary of State John Kerry’s cease fire plan was so ferocious, it was kept quiet in order to avoid “an open diplomatic confrontation with the United States.”

Kerry followed up that visit with one to Paris, where he talked with representatives of none other than Qatar and Turkey, while representatives from Israel, the PLO and Egypt remained uninvited to the table. That would be the same Qatar and Turkey that Israel TV Channel 2’s Middle East analyst Ehud Ya’ari referred to as “Hamas’s lawyers,” and the same nation of Qatar that signed an $11 billion arms deal with the Obama administration that will provide them with Apache attack helicopters, as well as Patriot and Javelin air-defense systems.

Last Friday, Deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted Kerry’s regular contact with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu was necessary because Davutoğlu “is a key player in the region and has some leverage he can bring to bear on the situation. They have a relationship with Hamas. I mean, they can, you know, have conversations that we can’t.”

What conversations are those? On Twitter, Davutoğlu stated that he would talk to “Palestinian parties with the aim of ensuring that merciless attacks targeting our Palestinian brothers come to an immediate end.”

Two days later, the Obama administration disputed the idea that Kerry was pushing a Gaza cease fire plan promoted by Qatar and Turkey. An administration spokesman also disputed the notion that Kerry’s rejected plan was a formal proposal, characterizing it as a draft framework presented for Israeli input and commentary.

President Obama demonstrated an equal amount of contempt for the realities of an Israeli nation that must not only deal with a missile threat exacerbated by a new secret arms deal between Hamas and North Korea, but a system of tunnels so extensive and sophisticated, they represent an existential threat to Israel’s survival. In a phone call to Netanyahu, Obama called for “an immediate, 
unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities.” The White House further revealed that the president “reiterated the United States’ serious and growing concern about the rising number of Palestinian civilian deaths and the loss of Israeli lives, as well as the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.”

In other words, the Obama administration couldn’t care less about leaving Israel completely vulnerable to a tunnel system that could render the Iron Dome, the nation’s most effective defensive weapon, obsolete. On Monday, a senior IDF official claimed Israel was in possession of  all the attack tunnels, but that contention was disputed by Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri who claimed Israel has reached “only a fraction” of them. “We are convinced that our people are on the brink of liberation,” Masri added.

It is a liberation that IHH intends to facilitate with the possible aid of the Turkish government—and perhaps Obama’s blessing as well. Among the Kerry proposals that reportedly “horrified” the Israeli Cabinet, aside from the idea that Israel accept Hamas’s demands for the opening of border crossings into Gaza, and the opening of a post-war funding channel for Hamas (while the vast network of terror tunnels with exits located in Israel was ignored) was the construction of a Gazan seaport.

The maliciousness of such an idea cannot be overstated. When Israel unilaterally ceded Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005, it signed an Agreement on Movement and Access with the Palestinian Authority. It gave the Palestinians full control over their borders, permitting imports and exports, and included an approval for building a seaport. It was only after Hamas launch a murderous coup against the PLO in 2007 that Israel—as well as Egypt–reimposed border restrictions aimed at keeping the U.S.-designated terrorist group from arming itself. The naval blockade was reinstated, and its necessity was made evident as recently as last March. That’s when Israel seized a ship carrying M-302 surface-to-surface missiles that were flown to Iran from Syria before being loaded aboard the ship headed for Gaza. At the time the IDF revealed this was not the first arms-smuggling ship it had intercepted, but one “distinguished by the lethality and quality of its cargo.”

That reality apparently did nothing to dissuade the Obama administration. During a joint appearance with Kerry last week, Khalid bin Mohamed al-Attiyah of Qatar insisted Gaza “deserves” its own seaport, even “if it’s under international supervision.” The utter impotency of such supervision was laid bare on July 18, when the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) discovered 20 Hamas-owned missiles in one of their very own Gazan schools—and returned them to Hamas two days later. Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor illuminated the reality of international monitoring, at least with regard to Israel. “For years, we told you about the thousands of rockets that Hamas was smuggling into Gaza,” he said. “We were met with silence. Time and again we called on the international community to condemn the rocket fire and we were met with silence.”

The silence surrounding the true nature of IHH is also deafening. Despite its self-promotion as solely a humanitarian organization, Carnegie Endowment analyst Henri Barkey illuminated its greater agenda. “It’s an Islamist organization as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time,” he explained. Barkey’s contention echoed a 2006 report by the Danish Institute for International Studies characterizing IHH as one of many “charitable front groups that provide support to al Qaeda” and the global jihad. France’s former top counterterrorism judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, noted that his own investigation of IHH in the 1990s revealed they “were basically helping al-Qaida when bin Laden started to want to target U.S. soil,” he said.

Even more important, information acquired in 2011 by Israel’s Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) revealed that Erdogan actively supported the first flotilla. “Without (IHH’s) support, he would not have been elected prime minister,” the ITIC report declared, further noting that a fourth of senior IHH staff members had served, or were serving, in senior position in Erdogan’s AKP political party.

Prior to the first flotilla’s interception by Israel, Yildrim made his organization’s genuine intentions clear, vowing to “break the siege,” adding if Jerusalem “will be in Muslim hands, the whole world will to be in Muslim hands…. The present rulers of Jerusalem are the Jews, the Zionists. All the suffering and the evil in the world today is a result of that. Therefore Jerusalem must be liberated.”
This is the reality behind the first attempt to break the Israeli blockade. If the Turkish Navy supports Freedom Flotilla II, war between Israel and Turkey becomes a real possibility. If such hostilities come to pass, one is left to wonder which side the Obama administration will support. Demanding that Israel cease hostilities even as Hamas retains the capability to threaten the Jewish State’s existence—and even after Israel unilaterally agreed to five cease fires Hamas either rejected or violated—sends a troubling message.

Beheadings of Infidels, Halal Sex Products and "Muslims Don't Like Dogs"

Gatestone Institute
Facebook  Twitter  RSS

Beheadings of Infidels, Halal Sex Products and "Muslims Don't Like Dogs"
A Month of Islam in Europe: June 2014

by Soeren Kern  •  July 29, 2014 at 5:00 am
The Vatican failed in an attempt to cover up the contents of a prayer by a Muslim cleric at an interfaith "Prayer for Peace" service held in the Vatican garden on June 8. Departing from a pre-approved script, the imam recited verses 284-286 of Sura 2 from the Koran, the latter part of which calls on Allah to grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims.
Danish police raided a mosque in the Vibevej district of Copenhagen after a passerby allegedly saw weapons being carried into the complex.
"We now have hundreds of jihadists and thousands of sympathizers. This naïve Cabinet's inaction is inviting an attack in the Netherlands." — Geert Wilders, Dutch Freedom Party.
Conference attendees called on the Spanish government to sponsor an official study aimed at finding ways to bring European food standards into compliance with Islamic Sharia law.
The Dutch-Turkish jihadist known as Yilmaz is one of about 130 Dutch jihadists who have travelled to Syria.
Austria accused Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan of stirring up trouble on June 19, when he urged thousands of cheering supporters in Vienna to reject "assimilation."
Erdogan was rallying support for his candidacy ahead of Turkish presidential elections in August, and expatriate Turks have become a significant bloc of voters after changes to the electoral system now allow them to cast votes abroad.
Around 268,000 people of Turkish origin live in Austria, according to government figures, of whom nearly 115,000 are Turkish citizens.
Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, who had expressly warned Erdogan not to undermine efforts to integrate Turks into Austrian society, criticized the latest comments:
"These show very clearly that the Turkish premier has brought the election campaign to our country and created unrest with this. We reject this. And I can only say that respect for a host country looks clearly different."

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php

Latest Headlines from ENENews

Latest Headlines from ENENews

Posted: 28 Jul 2014 10:11 PM PDT
Posted: 28 Jul 2014 01:09 PM PDT
Posted: 28 Jul 2014 07:05 AM PDT

Promoting ‘Proportionality’ in the Service of Genocide

Promoting ‘Proportionality’ in the Service of Genocide


Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of "The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege."


Once again, in warfare between Israel and its neighbors, Israel’s critics note the many more dead and wounded among the Jewish state’s adversaries than among Israelis and attack Israel for disproportionate use of force. While photos of dead and wounded civilians, or of non-combatants desperately fleeing fighting around their homes, should elicit everyone’s sympathy, the translating of that sympathy into a “proportionality” argument with which to beat Israel is less an expression of humane sensitivity to the plight of innocent victims than a display of sanctimonious depravity.

International law includes a concept of proportionality as it applies to warfare. Intentionally targeting civilians constitutes not simply a criminal act but a crime against humanity. It is also considered a crime to attack a military target when it is clear that the likely incidental civilian injuries and deaths will be disproportionate to any likely military advantage to be gained as a result of the attack.

Consider the nature of the conflict between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is explicit in its genocidal intent, stating in its charter and in myriad declarations by its representatives that its goal is not only the annihilation of Israel but the slaughter of all Jews. It makes clear that it has zero interest in the establishment of a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel.

Apologists for Hamas’s Gaza regime claim that Israel, by blocking open access to Gaza, has, in effect, created an open-air prison in which Gazans suffer constant deprivation and so the organization has the right to try to break the Israeli siege. But from the time that Israel pulled all its citizens and troops out of Gaza, in 2005, the Palestinian leadership in the territory has pursued rocket attacks into Israel, and those attacks only escalated after Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. To the degree that Israel has limited access to Gaza, it has done so in response to these incessant bombardments and other assaults. In addition, its doing so is consistent with international law regarding states of belligerency and, for example, the United Nations has upheld the legitimacy of Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.

Moreover, the Israeli “siege” is typically overstated as totally cutting off Gaza from the wider world. In fact, one of Gaza’s borders is controlled by Egypt, not Israel. Further, huge amounts of goods enter Gaza on an almost daily basis from Israel and many Gazans cross back and forth between Gaza and Israel. Even during the current war, Israel continues to supply electricity and water to Gaza and continues to allow the daily passage of tons of goods, including food and medicine, into Hamas-controlled territory.

Also noteworthy is that Israel not only fully withdrew from the territory but left behind assets that could have contributed to Gaza establishing itself on a sound economic foundation. With the extensive financial support poured into Gaza by the international community, it could have become a Middle East Hong Kong or Singapore.

But Hamas has chosen to pursue its war of annihilation against Israel rather than create a prospering polity. It destroyed many of the economic assets left behind by Israel and devoted the huge influx of money provided by the Arab world and others in the international community to killing Israelis and trying to expunge the Jewish state instead of seeking to improve the lives and welfare of its people.
A major element of the current fighting is Israel’s effort to dismantle the extensive and highly sophisticated tunnel system built by Hamas to infiltrate and attack Israelis and to protect rocket launch sites and command and control centers. Israel had for a time, in the wake of earlier hostilities with Hamas, withheld deliveries of cement out of concern that it would be used to build underground military installations rather than houses and public facilities such as schools and hospitals. It subsequently bowed to international pressure and allowed extensive transfer of cement and related construction materials from Israel to Gaza, and its worst fears proved prescient. For Hamas, the well-being of Gaza’s civilians counts for nothing when measured against the murder of Israelis and extermination of their state.

Hamas initiated the recent conflict with indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel, targeting towns and villages and aiming – consistent with its broad genocidal objective – to kill as many Israelis as possible. It pursued its attacks with its leaders, its fighters, its caches of rockets, its launchers and its command and control centers, imbedded in heavily populated areas of Gaza, amid civilian houses and often within or in close proximity to hospitals, mosques and schools.

Hamas is thus doubly guilty of crimes against humanity as conceived in international law, guilty both in its targeting of civilian populations and in its use of civilian populations as human shields. (Regarding the former, even the Palestinian representative at the UN Human Rights Council acknowledged earlier this month that “[t]he missiles that are now being launched against Israel – each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at a civilian target.”

Israel, in turn, is faced with the choice of simply tolerating the onslaught, resigning itself to a large majority of its population living under the threat of recurrent rocket attack and forced repeatedly to flee to shelter or to spend hours in safe rooms, or of responding and attacking Hamas in an effort to end the threat. No nation would choose the former.

Any honest observer would acknowledge that Israel, unlike its enemies, does not intentionally target civilians. Moreover, in its targeting of Hamas operatives and assets, it goes to unique levels to avoid civilian casualties. This includes telephoning and leafleting civilians, and taking other measures as well, warning them to leave areas about to be struck. Israel does so despite the fact that it is thereby giving advanced notice to those it is targeting. Commonly, Hamas urges their human shields not to act on the warnings but to stay where they are, and the civilians, either out of devotion to Hamas or out of greater fear of Hamas than of the Israelis, do not leave. Israel also frequently aborts attacks, even on high-level Hamas military personnel, when civilians are nearby. Hamas sees itself as winning whatever Israel does: If Israel aborts attacks or gives sufficient warning so that operatives can escape and assets be moved, Hamas gains by maintaining its war machine. If Israel attacks despite the presence of civilians, Hamas can cynically use the death of innocents as propaganda tools against Israel and will have willing accomplices among the world’s political leaders and media outlets to promote its propaganda message.

At times, of course, Israel does err in a military strike, as is inevitable in warfare. It may have faulty intelligence about who is at a location. It may, rarely, mistake innocents for combatants (and Hamas combatants do not wear uniforms, largely to be able to blend into the civilian population and make it more difficult for Israel to distinguish them). Its ordinance may misfire and land somewhere other than the intended target. It may hit depots that contain much more explosives than anticipated and set off extensive secondary explosions that engulf innocents.

But while Israel’s critics may at times latch onto errors of this sort, particularly if their tragic consequences provide, for Hamas propaganda, good photo opportunities, their accusations of disproportionality against Israel rest more broadly on the point of Palestinian casualties far exceeding in number Israeli victims.

Again, however, the issue of proportionality in terms of international law refers not to numbers but to the obligation not to take military action when the likelihood of civilian casualties outweighs the military significance of the target.

Yet, since Hamas so thoroughly imbeds its personnel and materiel within civilian populations, it is inevitable that – in situations where Israel is able to defend its own population despite intense and indiscriminate attack, as in the current conflict with use of the Iron Dome system – Palestinian casualties will be much higher than Israeli casualties. The accusation of disproportionality based on numbers of dead and injured routinely leveled against Israel, despite its efforts to minimize the harming of civilians, becomes then essentially an argument that there is no Hamas military asset Israel can target that justifies the endangerment of civilian lives.

It becomes, in effect, an argument that Hamas should be free to pursue its genocidal campaign against Israel without Israel being allowed to defend itself.

The disproportionality accusation is ultimately an argument in support of the destruction of Israel. This is the ultimate thrust of, for example, British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s accusing Israel of “a disproportionate form of collective punishment,” and complaints of Israel’s use of disproportionate force by the prime ministers of Belgium and Finland, and the declaration issued by the EU that Israel “must act proportionately,” with its implication that Israel has not been doing so, and the promotion of such indictments by myriad voices in the world’s media.

To be sure, many such accusations are accompanied, at least in the political arena, by criticism of Hamas for its rocket attacks. Nick Clegg’s statement is certainly different in tone from that of his fellow Liberal Democrat MP, David Ward, who wrote that if he lived in Gaza he would likely join in Hamas’s crimes against humanity by firing rockets targeting Israeli civilians. But any accompanying criticism of Hamas is little more than pro forma when Israel is, in effect, being taken to task for any effort to strike back at her attackers and end the onslaught against her. The thrust of the disproportionality argument is to deprive Israel of effective self-defense and is a display of moral perversion on the part of its purveyors.

Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege.