I hate to make political hay from such a tragedy, but if only these knives had been registered… Or why does anyone need a knife this big. Oh and this is probably the work of those friendly folk who bring you Islam. Just saying…
29 die in rail station attack China calls terrorism; Uighurs blamed.
BY STUART LEAVENWORTH
McClatchy Foreign StaffMarch 1, 2014
The body of a victim is inspected by police officers outside a railway station, after an attack by knife wielding men left 27 dead in Kunming, in southwestern China’s Yunnan province, Saturday March 1, 2014. AP
BEIJING — A knife-wielding gang carried out an attack Saturday evening at a rail station in the south China city of Kunming, killing at least 29 and injuring more than 100, Chinese state media reported Sunday.
It was one of the deadliest attacks in China in years, and Chinese President Xi Jinping issued an unusual directive, distributed by the state news agency Xinhua, calling for authorities to “severely punish” what he called “violent terrorists.” Xinhua reported that four of the attackers had been killed, but it provided no information on when they died.
( I’m thinking China don’t play well with terrorists like we do.)
“Resolutely crack down on those who have been swollen with arrogance,” Xi’s directive said, according to Xinhua. “Understand the serious and complex nature of combating terrorism. Go all out to maintain social stability.”
Photos circulating on social media suggested that at least some of the victims were people lined up to purchase tickets. Other photos showed blood-stained bodies and people fleeing in terror.
Chinese state media, citing city officials, blamed the 9 p.m. attack on militants from Xinjiang, a region in West China that is thousands of miles from Kunming. “Evidence at the crime scene showed that the Kunming railway station terrorist attack was carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces,” Xinhua said, but it provided no details of the evidence.
Xinjiang is populated by Uighurs, Turkic Muslims who have long resented Beijing’s control of the area. In recent years, Uighur militants have carried out suicidal attacks on police stations in the region, often using knives and sometimes crude explosives. In October last year, a family of three Uighurs drove a sports utility vehicle onto a sidewalk in Tiananmen Square, killing two tourists and injuring 40, before setting the car on fire and killing themselves.
Kunming, in Yunnan Province, is 1,300 miles southwest of Beijing and about 2,333 driving miles southeast of Xinjiang’s capital, Urumqi. Because of the distances involved, and sketchy details provided by authorities and state media, some analysts Sunday urged caution in immediately concluding that Uighur militants were responsible.
Nevertheless, Saturday’s attack was likely to trigger a heavy handed response by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang, a region already under tight police control and restricted press access. Just last week, Beijing authorities arrested a leading Uighur scholar Ilham Tohti, charging him with promoting “separatism.” Tohti’s and his supporters dispute the charges, saying he is being silenced for his outspoken criticism of China’s human rights record in Xinjiang.
On Chinese social media on Sunday, most commentators expressed sympathy with the victims and urged government action against the terrorists.
“Some of these (victims) are poor people who do odd jobs and are possibly the breadwinners of their families,” wrote Anliuyi of Kunming. “They have children and parents, and just because they ran into this gang, they are dead and their families are broken.”
A man named Yang Haifei, who was wounded in the chest and back, told Xinhua he had been trying to buy a train ticket when the assailants carried out their attack. “I saw a person come straight at me with a long knife and I ran away with everyone,” he said. Others, he said, “simply fell on the ground.”
MCCLATCHY SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT TIANTIAN ZHANG CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT.
Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/01/219851/at-least-29-dead-in-rail-station.html#storylink=cpy
By Walid and Theodore Shoebat
In the future, the Egyptian Islamists will not only be conducting systematic violence, but cannibalism against Christians and moderates.
In a recent video interview, one Egyptian scholar exposed the high school curriculum coming from Al-Azhar university, the most reputable of all Islamic schools, showing that it condoned cannibalizing non-Muslims:
We allowed the eating of the flesh of dead humans… under necessary conditions. It [dead human flesh] must not be cooked or grilled to avoid Haram (wrongdoing) …and he can kill a murtadd (apostate) and eat him
The interviewer commented:
The book that is being taught to general high-school students mentions that those who don’t pray can be grilled & then eaten
Al-Azhar finds their support for cannibalism in Islamic authority. According toAl-Shafie, who is considered to be the founder of Islamic jurisprudence:
One may eat the flesh of a human body. It is not allowed to kill a Muslim nor a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule (because he is useful for the society), nor a prisoner because he belongs to other Muslims. But you may kill an enemy fighter or an adulterer and eat his body (716 in volume 1, Al-Kortoby)
And where did Obama give his 2009 speech in Egypt, which empowered the Muslim Brotherhood? Al-Azhar.
America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely three hundred views.
Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed him bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaeda-linked attack within twenty four hours.
Why the equivocation? Why the lies?
None of it made sense.
Now Obama’s throwing long-time ally Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak under the bus for the Muslim Brotherhood makes sense. All the White House contacts with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA. All the changes that CAIR and ISNA made to the training manuals that our intelligence community uses.
Kevin Dujan, a political analyst and radio and TV host wrote an article and appeared on radio on October 8 putting forth a theory that the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism, but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.
That Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the Ambassador, and through Obama’s supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released.
But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return.
Their beloved Blind Sheik.
Western Journalism broke the news on Monday that a source connected to the White House has stated that the murder of Stevens and the other Americans was a botched kidnapping linked to one Barack Hussein Obama.
Yeah, I know this is out there and then some, and if we were talking about any other president, including even Jihad Jimmy, I would be throwing down the BS card so fast it would make your head spin.
But we are not talking about any other president.
We are talking about Barack Hussein Obama, who climbed into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood before the desk chair in the Oval Office was even warm, and has been bending over backward for his Muslim friends ever since.
I have a feeling in my gut that there is far more to what happened and why in Benghazi than meets the eye, and we have barely even scratched the surface as yet.
Remember that jihadist US Army psychologist Nidal Hasan who perpetrated the worst shooting ever to take place on a U.S. military base?
On November 5, 2009, armed with a pistol and a revolver, Hasan entered his workplace — the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment — shot and killed 13 innocent people and wounded another 29.
Despite internal Army reports indicating Hasan’s fellow officers had reported his outspoken sympathy with radical Islam since 2005, and despite eyewitnesses saying that Hasan had shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, the U.S. Army and the POS’s administration refused to call the shooting an Islamic terrorist act or even a hate crime.
Now we have more evidence that the U.S. Army is infested with politically-correct “tolerance” fear of offending Islam. An 18-year veteran Army officer was fired from teaching a course on Islam because he had the temerity of actually teaching the truth.
Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley
Chad Groening reports for OneNewsNow.com, September 20, 2012, that Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley — a highly-decorated 1994 graduate of the US Military Academy who has been deployed to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for 6 combat tours — was relieved of a teaching assignment because he discussed negative aspects of Islam in an elective course entitled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” at the Joint Services Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.
Richard Thompson, President and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, says a letter sent out by 57 Islamist groups to several government agencies, including the Pentagon, had demanded that action be taken against Lt. Col. Dooley’s teaching. “All information that is offensive to Islam is to be removed,” Thompson summarizes the letter. “And any instructors [of the course] should be disciplined.”
Thompson concludes that the U.S. Army’s dismissal of Dooley was a direct result of the Pentagon bending to Muslims’ will: “the Department of Defense is following the instructions they got from these Muslim organizations.”
To please Muslims, the Army has chosen to scapegoat Lt. Col. Dooley. Thompson says Dooley’s career is being adversely affected: “He was slated to become a colonel and assume a command position. But because they did not like the way he taught the class and the way he portrayed Islam, they have stopped this whole procedure. They decided they were going to give him a negative evaluation and red-flagged his promotion.”
The Thomas More Law Center, a law firm that specializes in the defense of the civil rights and liberties of Christians, is considering a federal lawsuit aimed at vindicating Dooley’s rights to free speech and academic freedom.
I have tried most diligently to stay away from all this today, as I am so distraught over it all I have been driven nearly to tears several times over the last couple of days. Fortunately, I was gone a good part of the day and had little access to a computer.
I finally decided to take a peak at Drudge a little while ago, only to see the following in big block red letters – PAPER: U.S. WARNED OF EMBASSY ATTACK BUT DID NOTHING
I then clicked on the link and in very short order could not believe what I was reading.
Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination
Exclusive: America ‘was warned of embassy attack but did nothing’
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.
Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy’s security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.
Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.
In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.
I guess fund-raising in the desert trumps the security of our embassy and consulate personnel living and working abroad in often hostile places.
What is really sad is that we are only hearing about this from the British media, as it appears their American counterparts are much too busy trying to destroy the candidacy of Mitt Romney to be bothered.
After all, the comrade Dear Ruler must be protected at all costs.
And I am not buying for a second that this was all caused by some obscure video concerning Mohamed, as there is mounting evidence that the attacks had been in planning for some time, and they were then carried out on 9/11/2012.
I do not believe in coincidences – especially when it comes to bass-ackward, 7th Century, functionally illiterate, flea-infested primitive camel-washers.
I will have more on this in the coming days, but this is all I can stomach for now.
The one bright spot in what otherwise has been the most dismal, not to mention dangerous presidency in American history has been Obama’s willingness to continue to arrange meetings between 7th Century, bass-ackward illiterate camel-washers, and Allah.
I have to admit, even if half-grudgingly, this is the one thing Obama has gotten right – regardless of his motives.
Now along comes Jimmy Carter, the 39th POTUS, and the person I hold responsible for rekindling the 14 century-long Jihad that had pretty much laid dormant since WWI.
Apparently, Jimmy Earl is most displeased with Obama’s use of drones to dispatch the Jihadists to Hell:
Carter attacks Obama over assassinations and drone attacks
David Usborne Wednesday 27 June 2012
Former president Jimmy Carter has blasted the United States for anti-terror strategies such as targeting individuals for assassination and using unmanned drones to bomb suspected targets, saying they directly flout the basic tenets of universal human rights and foment anti-US sentiment.
In an article written for the New York Times headlined “A Cruel and Unusual Record”, Mr Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work trying to resolve conflicts around the globe, suggested that the US is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a rare attack by a former commander-in-chief on a sitting President – especially of the same party.
While Mr Carter does not name President Obama, there is little disguising that he is the principle target of his stinging words. Recent weeks have seen a slew of media reports detailing how Mr Obama has grown increasingly dependent on drones to take out suspected terror cells and describing how he has the final word to approve names on a “hit-list” of most-wanted terror suspects overseas for assassination. “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended,” Mr Carter wrote, concluding that the US is “abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights”.
In the past, Mr Carter, 87, has meted out similar criticisms, most notably George W Bush. This latest assault is embarrassing for Mr Obama as it will serve as a reminder that he specifically pledged to adjust America’s posture in the war on terror. He began by banning interrogation techniques he considered to be torture, such as water-boarding, and by closing down Guantanamo Bay. On the latter, of course, he has failed to deliver.
It is poignant, moreover, that both men are Peace Prize winners. Critics believe Mr Obama has proved himself unworthy of the honour which he received soon after taking office. His supporters believe however that he has pre-empted criticism of his foreign policy performance. Under his watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa’ida have been gutted. -End
James Earl Carter was defeated in one of the most lopsided presidential elections in the history of elections.
Thirty-two years hence, I still do not think he gets it. -Dave
In my over forty-eight years of circling the sun on this rock, I was pretty confident I had heard just about every kooky Jewish conspiracy theory in existence.
As far back as I can remember, I have heard how the Jews had taken over this and that, and were scheming to take over everything else – all in an effort to ultimately dominate the entire planet.
That would be a pretty tall order for a group of people that make up the smallest minority on Earth.
I guess it is just human nature on the part of many to blame this tiny minority for all the world’s ills, as it has been going on since the earliest beginnings of recorded history.
Now someone has come up with what has to be the Mother of all Jewish conspiracy theories:
Via weaselzippers.us (highlights are mine):
U.S.-Based Political Scientist Muhammad Waqi’ullah: The Neocon Movement, Established by Jews, Plans to Destroy the Islamic World by Brute Force and through “Harmless” Films like Superman, Tom and Jerry
Following are excerpts from an interview with Muhammad Waqi’ullah, a US-based Sudanese professor of political science, which aired on Al-Majd TV on June 4, 2012. Waqi’ullah received his Ph.D. from the University of Mississippi, and worked for the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America in Fairfax, Virginia. Muhammad Waqi’ullah: The neocon movement was established at US universities, especially at the University of Chicago. It was established by a group of Jewish professors, who fled Nazism. They wanted to fortify Western civilization against the leftist, secular, Nazi, and Fascist invasion.
Ultimately, they wanted to protect the Israelites, or the Jews, from annihilation by Western civilization. They infiltrated Western ideology, and specifically, American ideology, until the circumstances, under Bush Jr., enabled them to gain control over the country’s centers of power and to implement their ideas.
This led to the invasions with which they destroyed Islam and the Islamic world.
The neocons developed a very dangerous theory concerning the Islamic world. They taught it in the most important university – the National Defense University, in Maryland [sic]. Interviewer: What is this theory? Muhammad Waqi’ullah: The destruction of the entire Islamic world. Interviewer: Destruction?! Muhammad Waqi’ullah: Yes, the destruction of the entire Islamic world by brute force. The US Department of Defense denounced this seminar, and issued a communiqué condemning it. Interviewer: They based it on the theory of the clash [of civilizations]. Muhammad Waqi’ullah: Yes. But the [neocons] are now defeated. The liberal movement is the dominant one today. The liberal, pseudo-leftist movement is now dominant, under the leadership of that American… Obama. Interviewer: Can soft power be exploited to embellish the use of hard power? The neocons reject soft power, but surely some people use it to embellish hard power. Muhammad Waqi’ullah: This is extremely widespread in the American media, as well as in school curricula, and in the prevalent popular culture. The theory of hard power is based upon the principle of the rule of the strong, and the weakening and annihilation of the weak. The weak has no right to live. Only the strongest and the fittest are allowed to survive.
This theory emanates from biology. Darwin observed that the weak is always annihilated. It cannot cope with the climatic or environmental conditions, and it becomes extinct. He said that the same goes for human beings. A weak human, a weak civilization, a weak country, or a weak culture must be vanquished, in order to make way for the white race, for the strong, for “superman.” This is the “End of History” theory, established by Francis Fukayama – as you surely know better than others. The white man will seal history and rule supreme, and all other civilizations must be vanquished at the end of history.
[…] The Muslim fights for the sake of good, while the infidel fights for the sake of evil. It is a war of values, not of material interests or personal or national ambitions. It is a war of civilizations, a war of values. Islamic civilization defends the good.
Some films look the epitome of innocent, purity, and reliability. They look like nice harmless films, like the Superman movies or Tom and Jerry. People don’t sense the danger of these films, but these films instill Western philosophy, the theory of Thomas Hobbes [sic], which we discussed. Interviewer: The survival of the fittest… Muhammad Waqi’ullah: Exactly. The strong should survive, whereas the weak should be ridiculed, exterminated, and wiped out of existence. -End of excerpt
Personally, I think the professor has been hitting his hashish-filled water pipe a little hard.
The scary thing is that we in America actually allow garbage like this to be taught in our institutions of “higher learning.” -Dave
(h/t: My bestest NB bud Blonde)
I have been unable to get this video to embed properly, so please click here to view it.
It is almost as politically incorrect as I am.
Well, not really, but still.
(h/t: My bestest NB bud Blonde)