ISIL Takfiris destroy iconic statue outside Palmyra museum

Members of the ISIL Takfiri militant group have destroyed a renowned statue of a lion outside the museum in Syria’s crisis-hit central city of Palmyra, as they continue to wreak havoc in areas under their control.

The Syrian antiquities director, Maamoun Abdelkarim, said on Thursday that the statue, known as the Lion of al-Lat, was a matchless piece of art.

“ISIL members on Saturday destroyed the Lion of al-Lat, which is a unique piece that is three meters (10 feet) tall and weighs 15 tons,” Abdelkarim said, adding, “It’s the most serious crime they have committed against Palmyra’s heritage.”

Abdelkarim said the statue had been covered with a metal plate and sandbags to protect it from fighting. "We never imagined that ISIL would come to the town to destroy it.” Read more.

Dün Suriye'deki mücahidler Halep'in kurtuluşu için büyük bir operasyon başlattılar. Bu mübarek vakitlerde onların başarıya ulaşması için hep birlikte dua edelim.

Hamd, alemlerin Rabbi olan Allah’a mahsustur. Salat ve selam, O’nun sevgili Rasulüne, pak ehli beytine ve kıyamete kadar yolunu sürdürenlerin üzerine olsun.

Allah’ım! Baaslı Nusayri Beşşar Esed’i ve avanesini sana havale ediyoruz, onlar seni aciz bırakamazlar.
Allah'ım onların zulüm ve adaletsizliklerini Sana bildiriyoruz.
Allah'ım onlar senin arzında fesadı yayıyorlar, onlar senin kullarını öldürdü ve onlar senin dinini aşağıladılar.
Allah'ım sen hepsinden haberdarsın ve hepsinden güçlüsün. Allah'ım onlara gücünle karşılık ver.

Allah'ım onların kuvvetlerini başlarına geçir.
Allah'ım onlara Ad kavmine gönderdiğin fırtınayı gönder,
Ve onlara Semud'un çığlığını, Nuh kavminin tufanını gönder.
Allah'ım gökyüzünü onların başlarına geçir ve yeryüzünden dağıt.
Allah'ım onların devletlerini parçala, onların birliklerini böl.
Onların tuzaklarını başlarına geçir Ey Alemlerin Rabbi.

Hayy ve Kayyum olan Allah'ım
Kullarını güçlü yumruklar kıl,
Allahım mücahidlere direnişli kalmayı bahşet, onların kalplerini ve güçlerini birleştir.
Onlara zafer ver ve onları güçlendir. Allah'ım onların görüşlerini birleştir.
Onların silahlarını aynı hedefte birleştir, kelimelerini birleştir.
Onların kalplerini ıslah et. Allah'ım o mücahidleri kendi elinle düşmanlardan koru.

Allah'ım düşmanlarının birliklerini yerle bir et ve onların birliklerini mahvet, onların gücünü zayıflat.
Ve onların gönüllerine korku yerleştir.

Allah'ım senin sözün daima haktır: “Bana dua edin size icabet edeyim”
Allah'ım dualarımıza icabet et. Allah'ım dualarımıza icabet et…

reason.com
Andrew Napolitano on Hillary Clinton's Secret War
Clinton obtained permission from President Obama and Congress to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.

Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Departments of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country whose government is so entwined with the U.S. government that it almost always will do what American government officials ask of it.

In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Departments of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or group to be a terrorist organization, in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to them is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.

Turi sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered, or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria. Some of the groups that received the arms were on the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.

How could that be?

Damaged Interior Of The Saint George Church - Aleppo, Syria

The church was burnt down by western-Saudi backed terrorists 

I feel like Grey's Fandom needs to know this

First of all I’d like to thank all my recent followers, it’s really an amazing little community, especially the Owelia shippers

I try not to talk a lot about my personal details mainly because if I did I could go on forever lol and also I kinda wait until life crushes me and I let it out in writing.

I am Syrian, an Arab (search that up if you’d like to be a tad bit more knowledgeable) and to add to it, I’m a Muslim. Now before you all unfollow me, I’d like to assume you know better than tell me I’m a terrorist.

This is might be long overdue, and even kinda lame to mention, but I feel like I wanna address it anyway.

There has been quite a few occasions where the middle east is referred to in the show.

The first thing that we are often reminded with is Owen Hunt’s deployment. I love Owen as a character and the traits he comes with, but due to my background and the pain and knowledge that comes with it, it’s really hard for me to not actually hate him. They keep portraying him as a war hero, which implies that the US invasion was heroic. OK let me tell you about this, there is nothing admirable about the US in Iraq, personally, I’m not a fan of Saddam, imo he was a dictator who got his country into avoidable conflicts, nonetheless, the US army certainly did not help. Let’s face it, they wanted the Oil, the power, and people who were killed were -most if not probably all the time- innocent civilians and children, you can even look up how there are stories by American soldiers about how Iraqi kids gave them flowers. So the fact that Shonda made Owen and April enlist yet again made me feel offended. The least she could do is tell one little story about the other side of it all, or show that Owen was regretful. I get that sometimes it’s merely about getting the plot going, but this show reaches out to a lot of people, she could have used that power better.

The other maybe slightly less annoying things are the episodes featuring Arab guests.

There’s one where teddy treats a khaliji leader, and tho they don’t mention the country, it’s kinda obvious. Anyway, they also mentioned him as a great man, now I appreciate the attempt at not wanting to look racist and break the stereotype and all, but I honestly cannot think of a khaliji leader that was all democratic and wanting elections and all that. I mean don’t get me wrong, the UAE for example has grown to a beautiful place and the people -for the most part- are satisfied, even if the leader wasn’t chosen by elections (tho arguably the ways it came here and the state of actual Emaratis will turn back on them in time, but that’s just an opinion) The point is, inaccurate and I don’t see how the case added to the plot or characters, I thought it was just put there for the diversity and jokes about Bono.

The other episode, which this time there isn’t much to criticize about, is the one where the Syrian doctors came. I thought oh how the doctors could possibly come to the US and go back with supplies, because you see, that doesn’t really happen, but I really really love and appreciate that they did portray the struggles about electricity and severity of the situation. I also loved when one of the doctors talked about a date you’d see on an old Arabic movie and then snapped Arizona back to reality and told her that he took his wife to the movies, like real life is nothing like old Egyptian romance movies 😂. The only negative comment I have about this is that when the doctors spoke in ‘Arabic’ it wasn’t even nearly Arabic, idk what it was but it sounded like just random foreign letters lol, they could have done better, given that in the other episode they did speak Arabic (tho it was a bit thick)

OK, I just had to get that out. I’d be happy if this reached out to even one person who wasn’t aware of these issues before.
P.S. I don’t mean to offend any American of patriot, but you gotta realize that loving your country and supporting every decision by your government are two ENTIRELY different things. God knows hopefully all Arabs, or muslims for that matter, should know this by now.

eff.org
Research Shows Internet Shutdowns and State Violence Go Hand in Hand in Syria

EFF has noted and protested when authorities deliberately cut off Internet access in times of unrest.  As a restraint on the freedom of expression of those affected, communication blackouts during protests are unconscionable.  But recent research by Anita Gohdes, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Mannheim, suggests that Internet shutdowns are becoming part of a toolkit for more violent repression.

By analyzing the daily documented killings by the government in the Syrian civil war in conjunction with available data on country-wide Internet outages between March 2011 and September 2013, Gohdes found that state violence spiked just before and during periods where connectivity was shut down. She argues that the regime has used the shutdowns as a tactical advantage in the midst of conflict with opposition groups, breaking down opposition communications networks to weaken their ability to respond effectively to attacks.

While these findings draw only from the Syrian conflict, they indicate that Internet outages have a human rights impact that exceeds the deprivation of speech: they can be used to aid state violence.

youtube

The Hidden Players Really In Control Of ISIS

Islamic State is undoubtedly a real and exponentially growing threat. But who are the key players in this monstrous group, and why are they achieving so much success? This comprehensive report explains the formation of ISIS and the process by which it has been funded, armed and equipped.

The rebranding of ISIS as ‘ISIL’ by the USA denotes the expansion of the extremist group beyond Iraq and into the Levant, reflecting its similarly expanding power, peril, and prowess. As political analyst Hussein Royvaran explains, “The US regards it as a security threat which must be destroyed by bombing, whereas ISIL is a social phenomenon, rather than military”. With strong intelligence, a tight structure, and a powerful propaganda machine, this group is now the world’s wealthiest terrorist organisation.

Yet ISIL owes its strength to countries who supported the group when it benefited them to do so. Turkey provided the bulk of ISIL’s funds, logistics, training and arms in the fight against Assad, whilst an agreement between ISIL and the Kurdistan government permitted ISIL to conquer the Iraqi city Mosul in July 2014 while allowing the Kurds to take the oil rich city of Kirkuk. As journalist Pepe Escobar explains, “My informed guess is that more or less they divided the territory. They made an agreement”. The USA paradoxically poured resources into moderate rebels during the group’s early stages to fight against the Soviet Union, and years later confronts the same men as extremists, proclaiming war a new enemy: “The United States will… degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL” declares President Obama.

Once a small militant faction, ISIL has now attracted over 12,000 radicalised militants. Following the brutal beheadings of journalists and aid workers, the group is succeeding in its quest to provoke Western powers, and swell its ranks with vulnerable youth. As Escobar notes, “The way they edited the beheading didn’t have to show blood, didn’t have to be aggressive – it was a very good piece of filmmaking, just suggesting fear”. This informative doc reveals the subtle processes by which ISIL have emerged, and questions the policies and mistakes that have permitted its evolution.

Press TV - Ref 6465

youtube

The truth is, you only know part of Syria’s story.

Syria is the country where 18,000 civilians have signed up to be volunteer first responders to rescue people from daily barrel bomb attacks, where doctors risk their lives in underground field hospitals to save patients from chemical weapons, and where people play music on piano as the government starves their neighborhood in austere siege policies.

These people are ‪#‎MoreThanFaces‬, and this is a humble contribution to them.

telegraph.co.uk
Islamic State? This death cult is not a state and it's certainly not Islamic
We must settle on a name for our enemies that doesn’t smear all Muslims but does reflect reality

If we are going to defeat our enemies we have to know who they are. We have to know what to call them. We must at least settle on a name – a terminology – with which we can all agree. And the trouble with the fight against Islamic terror is that we are increasingly grappling with language, and with what it is permissible or sensible to say.

When a man sprays bullets at innocent tourists on a beach, or when aman decapitates his boss and sticks his head on the railings, or when a man blows himself up in a mosque in Kuwait – and when all three atrocities are instantly “claimed” by the same disgusting organisation – it is surely obvious that we are dealing with the same specific form of evil. This is terrorism.

But what are the objectives of this terrorism? Is it religious? Is it political? Is it a toxic mixture of the two? And what exactly is its relationship with Islam? Many thoughtful Muslims are now attempting – understandably – to decouple their religion from any association with violence of this kind.

The excellent Rehman Chishti, MP for Gillingham, has launched a campaign to change the way we all talk about “Isil”. He points out that the very use of the term “Islamic State” is in itself a capitulation to these sadistic and loathsome murderers. They are not running a state, and their gangster organisation is not Islamic – it is a narcissistic death cult.

Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behaviour; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favour of more derogatory names such as “Daesh” or “Faesh”, and his point deserves a wider hearing.

But then there are others who would go much further, and strip out any reference to the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the discussion of this kind of terrorism – and here I am afraid I disagree. I can well understand why so many Muslims feel this way. Whatever we may think of the “truth” of any religion, there are billions of people for whom faith is a wonderful thing: a consolation, an inspiration – part of their identity

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom the word “Islamic” is a term of the highest praise. They resent the constant association of “Islam” with “terrorism”, as though the one was always fated to give birth to the other. They dislike even the concept of “Islamic extremism”, since it seems to imply a seamless continuum of Muslim belief and behaviour: from liberal to tolerant to conservative to reactionary to terrorist.

Their point is that terrorist violence is alien from Islam, and that is why they argue so strenuously that we should drop all references to “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic terrorists”. They say that any use of the word Islam or Muslim in such a context is actually offensive and derogatory, and helps to alienate the very people we need to win over.

As one Muslim friend put it to me, “you wouldn’t talk about Christian terrorists would you?” And there is some truth in that. We don’t talk about “Christian terrorism” even in the context of the sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Why do we seem to taint a whole religion by association with a violent minority?

Well, I am afraid there are two broad reasons why some such association is inevitable. The first is a simple point of language, and the need to use terms that everyone can readily grasp. It is very difficult to bleach out all reference to Islam or Muslim from discussion of this kind of terror, because we have to pinpoint what we are actually talking about. It turns out that there is virtually no word to describe an Islamically-inspired terrorist that is not in some way prejudicial, at least to Muslim ears.

You can’t say “salafist”, because there are many law-abiding and peaceful salafists. You can’t say jihadi, because jihad – the idea of struggle – is a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t necessarily involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness. The only word that seems to carry general support among Muslim leaders is Kharijite – which means a heretic – and which is not, to put it mildly, a word in general use among the British public.

We can’t just call it “terrorism”, as some have suggested, because we need to distinguish it from any other type of terrorism – whether animal rights terrorists or Sendero Luminoso Marxists. We need to speak plainly, to call a spade a spade. We can’t censor the use of “Muslim” or “Islamic”.

That just lets too many people off the hook. If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the west, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.

If we purge our vocabulary of any reference to the specifically religious associations of the problem, then we are not only ignoring the claims of the terrorists themselves (which might be reasonable), but the giant fact that there is a struggle going on now for the future of Islam, and how it can adapt to the 21st century. The terrorism we are seeing across the Muslim world is partly a function of that struggle, and of the chronic failure of much Islamic thinking to distinguish between politics and religion.

The struggle is really about power, of course, rather than spirituality – but that does not mean we can ignore the potency of the religious dimension. It doesn’t much matter which word we agree on, with Muslim communities, to describe this ideology of terror – Islamism? Islamo-fascism? – but we need to settle on it fast, and then join together to stamp out the phenomenon. If we are going to beat them, we must all at least know their name.