|
In this mailing:
by Judith Bergman
• March 22, 2016 at 5:00 am
- Documentary
filmmakers in Denmark conducted an undercover investigation, with hidden
cameras, into claims that imams are working towards keeping parallel
societies for Muslims within Denmark.
- Abu Bilal, imam
of the Grimhøj mosque, told Fatma that her husband is entitled to
take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his
"sexual rights," even when he is violent.
- The imam of the
Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque gave Fatma the same answers she had
received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without
her husband's permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her,
she must not contact the police.
- Umm Abdullah
told Fatma that she should only meet with Danish people in order to
tell them about Islam. This is necessary, she said, to save the
Danes from hell, and the only reason Muslims should interact with
Danes.
Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque in Denmark, was
fined €10,000 last year in Germany, after being found guilty of inciting
hatred against both Jews and non-Jews. (Image source: MEMRI video
screenshot)
The issue of parallel Muslim societies has sparked renewed debate in
Denmark after a three-part television documentary, "The Mosques
Behind the Veil" was aired at the beginning of March on Danish TV2.
The documentary consists of an undercover investigation into claims
that Muslim imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims
within Denmark.
by Peter Huessy
• March 22, 2016 at 4:00 am
- Deterrence is
not about guaranteeing to one's adversaries that one will only spend
what the adversary deems acceptable to enable a "fair
fight."
- If one is to
believe the advocates of minimum deterrence, Russia has plans to
attack 400 U.S. nuclear missile silos and nearly 50 associated
launch control centers, using two warheads for each target to assure
success. But a Russia that had at least 900 nuclear warheads would
not be "balanced" by the United States that had only 250
warheads.
- Many nations
have not been deterred from aggression, even by the prospect of
losing millions of their own people.
- The U.S.
requires a survivable deterrent force; not one subject to being
eliminated by an enemy's first strike because the U.S. deterrent was
so small that it was no deterrent at all.
The U.S. nuclear "Triad" consists of nuclear
warheads mounted on platforms based at sea, in the air and on land.
In discussing the nuclear deterrent required by the U.S., former
commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces General C. Robert Kehler said,
"The whole purpose of deterrence is to bind the other guy's
behavior," requiring robust military and vigorous statecraft.
The breakdown in international order recently described by retired
General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, (DNI),
however, calls into question the very effectiveness of America's
deterrent capability.[1]
In light of recent geostrategic developments, some former U.S.
defense experts are calling for the United States dramatically to curtail
its nuclear deterrent.
These experts assume that the deterrent value of nuclear weapons is
waning and that since the it spends far more on overall defense than do
other nations, the U.S. can afford to cut back in this area.[2]
But are such recommendations unwise? Absolutely.
by Burak Bekdil
• March 22, 2016 at 4:00 am
- Turkish
President Erdogan's hatred of Egypt's President Sisi is not about a
choice between democratic practice or dictatorial rule. It is about
Sisi's fight against radical Islamists, whom Erdogan adores.
- Sisi apologized
for the delays in rebuilding churches that were destroyed by
Islamists in 2013. He said: "We have taken too long to fix and
renovate [churches] that were burned. Please accept our apologies
for what happened ... by next year there will not be a single church
or house that is not restored."
- A total of
1,845 people in Turkey have been investigated, detained or
prosecuted for "insulting" Erdogan since he was elected in
August 2014.
In the West, the governance of Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan (right) is considered tyrannical, while Egypt's President
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (left, hugging Coptic Pope Tawadros II) wins praise.
In theory, Egypt is ruled by a former army General who came to power
by a coup d'état. In contrast -- and in theory, too -- Turkey is ruled by
a leader who has the popular support of half the voters -- a
democratically-elected man. But as the West (not always Western leaders)
tend to highlight, in bolder-than-ever letters, Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan's is a tyrannical governance while Egypt's President Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi wins praise.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment