#abu bakr al-baghdadi | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

eretzyisrael · 10 months ago

Text

by Giulio Meotti

There were shameful scenes at a Women's Rights Day demonstration in Munich's Marienplatz. Palestinian flags everywhere. Israeli flags were not welcome. Left-wing and pro-Palestinian groups insulted and pushed several Jewish women. Among the participants was the president of the Jewish community of Munich, Charlotte Knobloch (a Holocaust survivor).

Same scenes in Paris. Insults, attempted aggression, threats, and throwing of projectiles, the pro-Israeli collectives had to be exfiltrated from the Paris demonstration organized on the occasion of International Women's Rights Day. "We heard slogans like 'dirty Jews,' 'Nazis,' 'Israeli murderers,'" Mélanie Pauli-Geysse, president of No Silence, told Le Point.

No media or feminist organization in Europe is following the testimonies reported by the survivors of the family of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the caliph of Daesh.

Eggs, broken bottles, rubber bullets. "It was then that the situation worsened, we were only able to walk a few minutes before being exfiltrated by the police for our safety."

In L'Express, Sarah Barukh wrote: "There were Iranian, Afghan, Israeli, Pakistani, Yazidi, and others. We denounce the devastation of apartheid imposed by radical Islamism. We stand alongside women who are victims of barbaric traditions such as excision, in France and elsewhere." Next to her, Mona Jafarian, who fled from Iran, and Father Desbois, a Catholic priest who returned from Ukraine and recounted his life with Yazidi women, his arrest in Iraq, and his death sentence in several countries designated as lands of Islam because "I expressed words of sympathy towards the Jews."

Meanwhile, the Algerian writer Kamel Daoud writes that no media or feminist organization in Europe is following the testimonies reported by the survivors of the family of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the caliph of Daesh. His daughter, his wives, his sexual slaves are interviewed on Saudi TV to talk about the caliph.

"No relaunch in newspapers or platforms, no analysis, no echo," writes Daoud. "Western neo-feminism, crumbling into particularisms, is indifferent to this 'Muslim' scene where the condition of millions of women parades, beyond digital screens and the effects of ideological bubbles."

A forced tour should then be immediately organized to the Hamas cages under Gaza where Hamas is holding Israeli female hostages. And for those who don't feel like it, there is still the exhibition in London in which the conditions of imprisonment of the Israelis were recreated based on the testimonies of those who were exchanged in November.

Nothing seems to interfere with the ideological excitement these old and perverse peacocks derive from a barbarism they mistake for rebellion.

There is a pathological reluctance across the West to believe that Hamas has raped and mutilated women. "It didn't happen" or "where is the proof?" The speed with which these people went from saying "believe women" and #MeToo to "show the rape photos or it didn't happen" is mind-blowing.

Rape denial is so widespread that some have felt compelled to take to the streets to raise awareness of Hamas's sexual crimes. British Jews and their (few) allies gathered near BBC headquarters to say "rape is not resistance." Some wore jogging bottoms with stains between the legs, in solidarity with Naama Levy, the 19-year-old Israeli woman seen in that very state shortly after the Hamas pogrom.

The West went from "believe women" to "believe terrorists."

Nothing seems to interfere with the ideological excitement these old and perverse peacocks derive from a barbarism they mistake for rebellion in an unholy marriage of Western self-loathing and Islamic Jihad. They are willing to do anything to save the most squalid moral vanity and be able to continue selling us their "goodness." Except that it is really evil.

#feminists #hamas #rape #hamas rape #women's rights day #marienplatz #munich

47 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 24 days ago

Text

The breakthrough hostages-for-a-cease-fire deal between Hamas and Israel was struck Wednesday because the terror group understood that the terms of any agreement under President-elect Donald Trump would be far worse, according to his incoming White House national security adviser.

“Clearly, the entire world recognizes that this was the Trump effect,” Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who will serve as Trump’s principal adviser on all national security issues, told Fox News “Special Report” host Bret Baier.

Waltz argued that Hamas “had no choice” but to accept the deal, which will lay the path to freeing 33 hostages over the next 42 days in exchange for Israel releasing 1,000 Palestinians imprisoned in jails and pushing troops out of some parts of northern Gaza.

“They believed President Trump when he said there would be all hell to pay and any deal that was on the table would only get worse once he was in office,” the incoming White House national security adviser said of the terror group responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on the Jewish State.

“I mean, this is President Trump – who took out [Iranian Gen. Qasem] Soleimani, who took out [Islamic State boss Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi – I think all these terrorist organizations understand now, the type of man and the type of leader that they’re dealing with,” Waltz said.

Waltz noted that he understands the concerns about the Palestinians being released as part of the deal but “at the end of the day, those hostages have been down there in those tunnels getting raped, abused, in horrific conditions.”

“They had been there longer than the 1979 hostages, and in much more horrific conditions,” he added, referring to the 53 Americans who were held hostage by Iran near the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency.

Even Biden insiders admit it took Trump to close the cease-fire and Israel hostage deal

“I’m convinced they all would have died if President Trump hadn’t come in and said, ‘Get them out,’” Waltz said of the Hamas-held hostages, who have been in captivity for the last 15 months.

Waltz called the landmark agreement “a Reagan moment” for Trump, because Hamas “understood the consequences if they didn’t get this done.”

The Iranian hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, the day former President Ronald Reagan replaced Carter in the White House.

Waltz indicated that Trump, 78, will have no reservations about supporting Israel if it ends up needing to “go back in” to Gaza and conduct more operations against Hamas.

“We’ve made it very clear to the Israelis, and I want the people of Israel to hear me on this – If they need to go back in, we’re with them,” the Florida Republican said.

“If Hamas doesn’t live up to the terms of this agreement, we are with them,” he added.

Israel-Hamas cease-fire deal is back on after ‘last-minute crisis’ resolved: official

On the future of the terror group, Waltz was adamant that Hamas is “not going to continue as a military entity” and will have no role in governing Gaza should peace last in the region.

“I think by the end of President Trump’s term, we’re going to be talking about rail and fiber and data centers and moving the region forward. In a way that only President Trump could transform,” he added, referring to what the broader Middle Eastern region will look like under Trump.

#nunyas news

5 notes · View notes

darkmaga-returns · 2 months ago

Text

US In ‘Direct Contact’ With Designated Terror Group HTS, Blinken Admits

by Tyler Durden | Dec 15, 2024

The US has made “direct contact” with the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) under Abu Mohammad al-Jolani which now holds Damascus and most major Syrian cities in the wake of Assad’s fall.

“We’ve been in contact with HTS and with other parties,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said following talks with Arab diplomats in Aqaba, Jordan.

This is the first official acknowledgement that the Biden administration is interacting with HTS, which has long been an officially US-designated terror organization, as it originated as Syrian al-Qaeda. Jolani also was once the personal envoy of ISIS terror leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

NBC News has underscored, “The U.S. designates HTS a terrorist organization, making it legally impossible to work with the group, but contact underscores ongoing efforts to change that designation as the U.S. and its allies look to support Syria’s transition from Assad rule.”

A statement from Blinken’s meetings in Aqaba and signed by representatives of the US, EU, Turkey and several Arab countries called for a “a more hopeful, secure and peaceful future”. It urged the protection of women and all ethnic and religious minorities, and for the preventing of “the reemergence of all terrorist groups.”

Also, Jordan’s foreign minister stressed that regional powers don’t want to see post-Assad Syria “descend into chaos”. Given that it remains formally listed as a terror group, HTS was not represented in the Jordan meeting.

5 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 20 days ago

Text

The U.S. president has significant latitude to use military force even in the absence of congressional authorization and even when such action would violate international law. Through its military interventions in the Middle East since Oct. 7, 2023, the Biden administration has both further eroded the existing guardrails constraining presidential war powers and possibly bequeathed a new conflict with the Houthis to his successor.

Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s oft-deployed slogan of “no new wars” and claims that United States was at peace during his first administration, Washington both engaged in new conflicts and expanded and intensified existing ones without fresh congressional authorization under this leadership between 2017 and 2021.

Trump’s first four years in the White House revealed a commander in chief who, while erratic, had certain tendencies with respect to the use of military force. Due in part to his transactional nature, Trump was generally skeptical of large-scale U.S. military presence overseas and the value of U.S. alliances and partnerships. He was prone to one-upmanship with respect to U.S. military action—launching attacks in part because prior presidents had refrained from them.

Given the wide freedom of action afforded the commander in chief and the might of the U.S. military, decisions by the incoming president on the use of force could be globally consequential. In light of those stakes, it is worth revisiting Trump’s track record on the use of military force during his first term in office.

When Trump took office in 2017, he inherited a narrowly focused U.S. military mission in the complicated battle space of the Syrian civil war. Despite broader policy objectives, his immediate predecessor, President Barack Obama, had limited direct military force in Syria to fight the Islamic State, rejecting calls from his advisors to attack Bashar al-Assad and enforce the administration’s self-imposed “red line” on chemical weapon use.

Despite a monthslong review of the Obama administration’s campaign plan to fight the Islamic State, the Trump administration’s most notable initial shift was redubbing “ISIL” to “ISIS.” Although the destruction of the Islamic State’s physical “caliphate” and the killing of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ultimately occurred on Trump’s watch in 2019, mostly his administration continued Obama’s counterterrorism playbook.

However, Trump had cause to revisit Obama’s red line early in the administration when Assad’s forces launched a deadly sarin attack on Khan Shaykhun in 2017, killing dozens of civilians, including children. According to two of Trump’s children, Trump decided to strike in retaliation after seeing images of Syrian children fatally poisoned. Trump’s statements also suggested that he wished to one-up Obama, critiquing his predecessor for failing to enforce the red line.

Yet, Trump’s original retaliation plan wasn’t implemented. According to reporter Bob Woodward and later partially confirmed by Trump, Trump called Defense Secretary Jim Mattis seemingly to demand the assassination of Assad, shouting, “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.”

Woodward reports that Mattis told his subordinates, “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.” (Trump has denied this account of events.) And so, the U.S. retaliation was more measured, consisting of airstrikes on the Shayrat airbase, which was allegedly used to conduct the fatal sarin attack.

Although Trump was enthusiastic about killing terrorists, he had an aversion to anything he perceived as nation-building and was deeply skeptical of large-scale troop deployments. These sentiments contributed to his precipitous decision in December 2018 while on a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan—to withdraw all U.S. forces from Syria. The sudden move led to the Mattis’s resignation.

Despite Trump’s announcement, U.S. forces remained in Syria as officials in his administration walked back the decision of total withdrawal. This was partly due to Trump’s intermittent focus on the matter and the separate, more ambitious Syria agendas of his underlings, some of whom were more interested in using U.S. troops to counter Iran rather than the Islamic State. Later, in October 2019, Trump did in fact partially pull back US troops in northern Syria at the urging of Turkey.

Trump was also convinced by officials within his administration and members of Congress to retain some U.S. forces in Syria to “keep the oil.” These advocates appealed to Trump’s long-stated desire for concrete material benefit from U.S. military deployments. The reality that “keeping the oil” was both impractical and illegal did not matter.

Trump’s policy shift on Iran was more dramatic. Obama left office having constrained Iran’s nuclear program through a painstakingly crafted multilateral agreement while Tehran’s paramilitary proxies in Iraq observed a wary truce with U.S. forces as they both fought the Islamic State.

After firing many of the supposed adults in the room in his administration, Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions to apply “maximum pressure.” These actions upended a tense modus vivendi in Iraq. With Tehran no longer restraining them, Iran-backed paramilitary groups based in Iraq resumed attacks on U.S. forces in 2018.

Even so, Trump was not eager to engage in a major conflict with Iran. After the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone over the Persian Gulf in 2019, Trump ultimately refrained from the retaliatory attack advocated by his hawkish advisors—reportedly due to cautionary counsel from Tucker Carlson. Trump also refrained from attacking Iran in response to Iranian missile strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. Despite publicly blaming Tehran for the September 2019 attack, Trump announced he would “like to avoid” conflict with Iran and indicated interest in a new nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

Yet, the Iran hawks surrounding Trump ultimately convinced him to take significant and provocative military action against Iran. According to reporting by Jack Murphy and Zach Dorfman, officials such as then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo began planning to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani as early as 2017. Continuing attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq from Iran-backed forces in late 2019 provided justification; he was ultimately killed in January 2020.

What exactly Trump’s advisors told him about the likely Iranian response to Suleimani’s killing is unclear. But he does not seem to have expected the retaliatory ballistic missile barrage that Iran unleashed on U.S. troops in Iraq. Certainly, he sought to immediately downplay the attack in an effort to de-escalate with Iran—tweeting out “all is well” following the strikes. Trump has continued to minimize the injuries to U.S. troops—more than 100 service members with traumatic brain injuries—as headaches. Indeed, Pentagon officials were reportedly concerned that awarding Purple Hearts to wounded troops would undermine Trump’s narrative.

Such predictable Iranian retaliation was the reason that both the Bush and Obama administrations had refrained from killing Suleimani.

The Trump administration, Iran hawks in Congress, and the commentariat have subsequently tried to cast Suleimani’s killing as “restoring deterrence” vis-a-vis Iran. Such spin obscures not only Iran’s immediate ballistic missile attack on U.S. troops, but also further attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iran-backed groups during the remainder of Trump’s term, some of which resulted in U.S. fatalities.

In Yemen, the Obama administration gave Trump a counterterrorism campaign against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and a conflict with Houthi militants in which the United States was not directly fighting (apart from a single strike on Houthi radar facility in late 2016).

Still, the United States was providing essential arms, maintenance, and spare parts for the ruinous bombing campaign waged by a Saudi Arabia-led military coalition. The coalition’s penchant for using U.S. weapons to bomb Yemeni civilians—and its failure to improve targeting over 18 months—led the outgoing president to suspend precision-guided munition transfers to Saudi Arabia after its warplanes bombed a funeral in Sanaa, killing more than 100 civilians.

Among Trump’s very first military actions as commander in chief was greenlighting a rare and risky commando raid against AQAP in Yemen that the outgoing Obama administration had forgone. The U.S. assault alongside forces from the United Arab Emirates resulted in numerous civilian casualties—including children—and the death of a U.S. Navy SEAL.

Trump also promptly reversed Obama’s lame-duck arms sales suspension. While he had little interest in direct U.S. military engagement in the Saudi-Houthi conflict, Trump was all too eager to sell weapons to Riyadh.

Although his administration would later seek assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would use U.S. weapons consistent with the law of war, the desire to sell weapons overshadowed accountability. After Saudi Arabia used U.S.-supplied precision-guided munitions to attack a school bus full of Yemeni children in 2018, Trump characterized the strike as a “horror show” and candidly admitted that the Saudis “didn’t know how to use the weapon.”

When the State Department’s inspector general investigated U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Department’s efforts to limit civilian casualties, Trump fired the inspector general and the Department later suppressed the investigation’s full results.

There is no crystal ball to predict how Trump will wield his power as commander-in-chief. The degree of Trump’s personal involvement in policy, who he chooses to listen to, and the willingness or ability of his team to temper outlandish proposals are among the many sources of uncertainty.

Nonetheless, his record from 2017 to 2021 and subsequent statements—particularly following the 2024 election—could offer a preview of his agenda as commander in chief.

Trump is no dove, and he is fond of issuing blustery military threats. (His recent comments regarding potential military action with respect to Greenland and Panama appear to be mostly trolling and bluster—for now.) And though such threats alone may harm U.S. interests, he has often lacked follow through, and it seems he would avoid intentionally involving the United States in a major armed conflict. Indeed, he may again seek to remove U.S. forces from conflicts in Syria, Somalia, and potentially Iraq.

Yet, Trump’s instincts should provide only limited comfort to those concerned about further U.S. wars. His willingness to escalate U.S. bombing campaigns in Somalia and Afghanistan before moving to withdraw U.S. forces could provide a template for how he will handle the conflict with the Houthis he may inherit. His track record with enabling Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen suggests that he is happy to fuel other countries’ wars, no matter how they are waged.

And, as with the Suleimani strike, Trump may act heedlessly without fully appreciating the consequences of his actions—particularly if encouraged by his advisors. In this respect, Trump’s musings during his first term about missile strikes on Mexican drug cartels are particularly worrying.

By casting doubts on whether the United States would come to the defense of allies and partners, Trump may encourage adventurism by revisionist rivals as well as nuclear hedging by countries such as South Korea, which may decide that it is time for a level of self-reliance they have not previously considered necessary.

Trump’s boosters sometimes laud his unpredictability as a virtue that keeps foreign adversaries off balance and deterred. Whether it is a virtue or not, the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military will again be unpredictable and likely even less constrained than he was during his first term given the weak guardrails on use of force by the U.S. president.

6 notes · View notes

klbmsw · 4 months ago

Text

3 notes · View notes

poop4u · 2 years ago

Photo

Military Dog Injured During Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Raid Will Be Okay, Administration Official Says via Submitted October 28, 2019 at 04:48PM by heyitsrider, Poop4U

39 notes · View notes

ritchiepage2001newaccount · 1 year ago

Text

Kakistocracy #CorpMedia #Idiocracy #Oligarchs #MegaBanks vs #Union #Occupy #NoDAPL #BLM #SDF #DACA #MeToo #Humanity #DemExit #FeelTheBern

JinJiyanAzadi #BijiRojava SDF balance sheet of battle in northern Syria for the 11th day [UPDATES]

The Turkish military offensive seeking to invade North and East Syria was launched on October 9 and continues despite the ceasefire between the U.S. and Turkey announced on Thursday…

RELATED UPDATE: US secrecy on Baghdadi raid exposes distrust of NATO ally Turkey

RELATED UPDATE: Treasury Report Highlights Turkey as Islamic State’s Logistical Hub

RELATED UPDATE: America's allies in Syria accuse Turkey of giving ISIS a "safe zone"

RELATED UPDATE: IntelBrief: Turkey has Long Been an Important Support Base for Islamic State

RELATED UPDATE: Questions and Answers: Turkey’s Threatened Incursion into Northern Syria

RELATED UPDATE: Turkey will launch Syria ground operation after strikes - Erdogan

RELATED UPDATE: U.S. calls for de-escalation as Turkey threatens ground assault into Syria

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/23/turkey-kurds-syria-attack/

RELATED UPDATE: Mazloum Abdi: Turkish Attacks Impact Fight Against ISIS

https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/88619