Islamic State and Hillary Supporters Beg Hurricane Irma – ‘Destroy Trump’s America!’

Islamic State supporters have united with their natural allies on the regressive left to celebrate the destructive power of Hurricane Irma on the Great Satan and its wicked, climate-denying president Donald Trump.

Here are some screenshots of ISIS-supporting sites, provided by jihadist monitor MEMRI.

Though Islamists and progressives differ as to the cause of hurricanes – one side ascribes them to Allah, the other to Donald Trump and man’s selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle – they are both unanimous that the damage being done is good thing.

While the followers of ISIS want the whole of America destroyed, the followers of Hillary seek the more modest goal of seeing one of Trump’s homes reduced to rubble.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Keep Calm and Carry on in the Face of Muslim Terror? No Thanks

Whenever I’m trying to work out what I really think about another terrorist incident involving the Religion of Peace, the first place I always turn to is the BBC.

Whatever the BBC says I know for certain that the right view to take is the exact opposite.

And so it was last night on BBC News. A policeman had been stabbed to death; three passers-by had been deliberately mown down by a car on London’s Westminster Bridge, and another 29 injured, some very seriously. Clearly, this was yet another Islamic-State-inspired terrorist attack whose main aim was to inflict as much carnage as possible to as many innocent victims as possible until the perpetrator got shot.

Or so you might have thought, till you watched the BBC, which knew exactly what the real story was. Apparently, the tragedy of those dead and injured people, including at least one mother and several schoolchildren, was a relatively minor detail…

No, what the story was really about was that it was an assault on the heart of parliamentary democracy, a narrowly averted disaster which could have seen an actual MP get hurt and which, almost worst of all, meant that MPs and parliamentary staff and reporters and other inhabitants of the Westminster Bubble including the BBC’s own Laura Kuenssberg were forcibly cooped up inside the Parliament buildings for a few hours.

We knew this because one of the lead sections of the BBC’s coverage comprised amateurish footage that had been shot of Kuenssberg looking confused and trapped, wondering what was going outside. She was shown asking some other people trapped with her what was going on. They didn’t know, either.

But we did. That’s because by the time the news bulletin was broadcast at 10pm – seven hours after the incident – the story had moved on. We knew about the dead policeman. About the woman who’d jumped off the bridge into the river. About the poor chap who’d jumped over the parapet and fell 18 feet onto concrete. About the bearded assailant who’d died of his injuries not long after being shot by plain clothes police.

All of this was far more compelling and important and dramatic than anything Laura Kuenssberg might have experienced, hours earlier, during her unfortunate moment of temporary inconvenience under lockdown.

You could argue that this was simply a case of poor editorial judgement. Kuenssberg is, for better or worse, one of the BBC’s star reporters. Perhaps some cowed editor felt that her geographical proximity to the story – even though she hadn’t witnessed it or been able to do any useful reporting on it – justified giving her such prominence.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Mattel Issues Statement on Fireman Sam’s Koran Disaster: ‘Please Don’t Kill Us! We Don’t Want to Die!’

A spokeswoman for the multinational firm Mattel, which owns the show’s makers Hit Entertainment, said ‘It has been brought to our attention that in an episode of Fireman Sam (Series 9, Episode 7), an image of the Quran is briefly depicted.

‘The page was intended to show illegible text and we deeply regret this error. We sincerely apologise for any distress or offense it may have caused.

‘We will no longer be working with the animation studio responsible for this mistake.

‘In addition, we are taking immediate action to remove this episode from circulation and we are reviewing our content production procedures to ensure this never happens again.

‘Again, we apologise unreservedly to our viewers.’

Nice job, Mattel. Short of promising to go in and personally execute every last person in the Chinese animation studio responsible for the error, it’s hard to imagine what more the toy company could have done to make amends.

Gaia Beats Mars: How Our Military Are Being Turned into Green Eco-Wussies

Yes. That makes sense. Clearly one of the main priorities in any war of attrition should be to do everything possible to protect your enemies’ lives, wellbeing and resources.

Some might argue that a merciless death cult which now controls swathes of Iraq and Syria and a population of around 10 million, which makes $2 billion a year from oil and extortion, which rapes and enslaves girls as young as eight, tortures and kills prisoners, chucks gay men off buildings, and is committed to the destruction of Western civilisation, ought not to be treated with kid gloves.

But wiser souls in the Obama administration and at higher levels of the US military have clearly taken a more enlightened, eco-sensitive position: yes, Islamic State may behave inappropriately on occasion, but that is definitely no excuse to engage in tactical bombing operations which may cause serious damage to infrastructure, make the sand in the area all oily and black and sticky for miles around, and release into the atmosphere particles which not only could give nearby jihadis asthma attacks but could also drastically increase the Syria region’s carbon footprint, possibly causing global warming to increase by 0.0000000000000000000000001 degree c by the end of the century.

If only the Allies had applied a similarly enlightened policy in World War II we’d all be in a much better place I’m sure.

It would have meant, for example, that there would have been no environmentally insensitive bombing of oil refineries like the ones in Romania. Some Germans – including fighter ace Adolf Galland; head of the Luftwaffe Hermann Göring; and armaments minister Albert Speer – believed that without the Oil Campaign Hitler might have won.

But in environmental terms, perhaps a Nazi victory would have been for the best. Apart from modern day California, Nazi Germany was almost certainly the most eco-friendly state on earth: the first to ban smoking on public transport; the first to take animal rights seriously (Göring once threatened to send people found guilty of animal experimentation to the death camps); the first to pass national environmental laws; the first to champion organic food and vegetarianism.

Nazi Germans also put a great deal of thought about what to do with the population problem – and, at Wannsee, how to solve it. They really cared about open spaces and overcrowding (Lebensraum).

And they weren’t afraid to put their money where their mouth was, either: if the Germans had won the war, you can bet your bottom Reichsmark that there would be no pussy-footing around at next week’s Paris eco-summit. It would be a case of reduce your carbon emissions, schnell – or off to the death camps.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming Caused Hitler

This novel theory, first reported on in an American newspaper in 1941, has just resurfaced in the wake of claims by John Kerry and others that climate change was responsible for creating ISIS. Researchers were naturally keen to discover whether there was any precedent for such “global warming” related idiocy. And indeed it turns out that there was.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

US Professor Discovers the Reason for Islamic State: Climate Change, Apparently

A New York professor has discovered the real reason for the rise and rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq: not Islamist fundamentalism, death-cult nihilism or regional power struggles but climate change.

Charles B Strozier, Professor of History at the City University of New York, enlarges on his fascinating thesis at the Huffington Post.

While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather. Most of us perceive these threats as unrelated. We recycle water bottles and buy local produce to keep the earth livable for our children — not to ward off terrorists. Yet environmental stressors and political violence are connected in surprising ways, sparking questions about collective behavior. If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan — potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperiling Afghan girls who want to attend school — would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags? How would elections and legislation be influenced?

As evidence for this novel theory, Professor Strozier – with help from one Kelly A Berkell, attorney and research associate at the Center on Terrorism at John Jay College of Criminal Justice – cites the four-year drought which ravaged Syria from 2006 to 2010, setting off a “dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians”.

He argues:

Drought did not singlehandedly spawn the Syrian uprising, but it stoked simmering anger at Assad’s dictatorship. This frustration further destabilized Syria and carved out a space in which ISIS would thrive.

It is, apparently, a matter of some concern to the professor that this truth is not more widely recognised.

The connection between climate change and conflict continues to evade mainstream recognition, despite reports by think tanks, academics and even military experts. A leading panel of retired generals and admirals, the CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board, recently labeled the impacts of climate change “catalysts for conflict” in vulnerable regions. The Pentagon concluded similarly in this year’s Quadrennial Defense Review that the effects of climate change are “threat multipliers,” enabling terrorism and other violence by aggravating underlying societal problems.

Indeed. We have written about this unlikely alliance between the US military and the climate alarmism industry at Breitbart too. But the conclusions we have drawn on this are not quite as enthusiastic as Professor Strozier’s. Au contraire, the US military’s weird decision to lend its authority (and vast budget) to endorsing the discredited junk science of the warmist establishment is in much the same league of unforgivable irresponsibility and institutional political correctness that made, for example, the Fort Hood massacre possible.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Why climate science is far too important to be left to pretty boy celebrity physicists like Professor Brian Cox
  2. Islamic State jihadists: once you’ve beheaded someone for fun where do you stop?
  3. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy
  4. Why conservatives shouldn’t ‘believe’ in climate change

 

Dear Philip Hammond, What Exactly Is a ‘Moderate Jihadist’?

What exactly is a “moderate jihadist”?

Is it someone who tweets photographs of severed heads but fights shy of getting his hands bloody? Someone who inclines towards enslaving captured women and children rather than burying them alive? One who only executes Yazidis but not Christians?

Whatever, we can probably agree that UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond made a serious error when applying that unfortunate phrase on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning to members of the organisation – Islamic State – which had just murdered, in cold blood, an American journalist.

Yes it was probably a misspeak. But it’s not the kind of mistake you can ever imagine being made by a more competent, higher-calibre, more quick-witted MP, like, say, the man who would have made an infinitely superior Foreign Secretary but who is currently languishing as Chief Whip – Michael Gove.

How did it happen? Well I’m guessing that David Cameron’s MPs have had it drummed into them till their ears bleed that they are always and forever and at every possible opportunity to stress the vast gulf that exists between “moderate” Islam and “extremist” Islam.

Moderate Islam, as we know, having been repeatedly told so by the likes of the Prince of Wales, the BBC, the Guardian and most MPs, is an adorable heartwarming thing with the most marvellous tradition of hospitality, and a very real sense of the numinous, and an admirable dedication to charity, exquisitely woven carpets, sweet hot tea poured with great dexterity from a high-up tea pot into a tiny glass, and a religion of peace which has always afforded great hospitality to Christians and Jews, why just look at Granada, and you do realise that it was those splendid Muslim scholars, don’t you, who kept the intellectual traditions of classicism alive through the Dark Ages, etc.

Extremist Islam, meanwhile, is horrid, just horrid. But it’s all right because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Religion of Peace (TM) in its pure and original Koranic form, and all true Muslims shun and revile it because they recognise it as a perversion of their kindly, gentle faith.

That’ll be why, whenever a new atrocity is committed in the name of the Religion of Peace, the moderate Muslim communities of Bradford, Luton, and Birmingham always rise as one to condemn it in the strongest possible terms. No, wait…

An optimistic analysis of current events in Northern Iraq would be that the horror of what the (not actually moderate) jihadists of the Islamic State are doing will finally be enough to concentrate the minds of our complacent political class and force them to confront both the enemy without and the enemy within.
Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?
  2. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  3. What did our grandchildren do to deserve the Prince of Wales?
  4. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?