Having run out of sedans and swimming pools for its view of creative and fun forms of execution, ISIS is now returning to an old favorite of beheadings. In the latest video, they executed women for sorcery in Syria and earlier beheaded a street magician as immoral under Islam and Sharia law. Two women were executed with their husbands.
Two women were the latest victims of ISIS and its extreme view of Islamic justice. The group has been targeted possible sorcerers or practitioners of “witchcraft”.
Street performers have been deemed sorcerers if they merely do magic tricks for children. Optical illusions are deemed black magic under the primitive Sharia judgments of ISIS. The dead man’s image shows a broken bag full of prayer beads laid near his body. Such trinkets and charms are also viewed as black magic and blasphemy.
By the way, if this all seems incredibly medieval and bizarre, our closest allies also execute people for magic and sorcery, including Saudi Arabia. As we have discussed, Sharia courts regularly punish or kill people viewed as consorting with “genies” and engaging in black magic.
Reblogged this on New Tunisia TV.
This behavior passes for normal in the Islamic world and every American is not Islamophobic? This is patently unacceptable by even the most elementary definition of civilized behavior.
To Rick:
This behaviour isn’t normal in any world.
doglover, if you don’t think these people are also tortured, you are more of a dumb dog than a…dumb dog.
Ken Rogers, as most people recall, we had the Iraq and Afghanistan situation under control, until Obama pulled the troops out. At that time it was Al Qaeda we were fighting. As quickly as we pulled out all our troops, another dragon reared its head and called themselves ISIL, now ISIS. With few trained troops, few weapons and no strong military presence the “good guy” troops ran. We didn’t supply the Kurd’s to take Syria either.
I don’t want war anymore than anyone else, but to sit back and watch this cancer, ISIS, spread throughout the lands taking innocent lives is wrong also.
@ Karen S
1, July 1, 2015 at 9:39 pm
“It was Germany’s responsibility to curb the growth of the Nazis. They failed to act when they would have been easy to beat. They grew in scope and killed so many innocent people. Then it took a World War, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of people to beat them for good.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I worry that I am watching history repeat itself.”
I think you’re quite justified in worrying (though perhaps not for the same reasons as many of us) that history is repeating itself, for the clouds of World War are once again gathering, as the US government positions itself into going to war with Russia over, among other things, the Russians in Ukraine, just as the British government, led by Winston Churchill, positioned itself with Germany regarding the German population of Poland.
In his review of Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War,, Dr. Robert Higgs writes the following:
“In Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War, Patrick J. Buchanan seeks to demolish the Churchill myth, along with several related ones, which he does with surprising success. I say ‘surprising,’ not because the myth itself was ever unassailable—excellent historians, including Ralph Raico, long ago pounded Churchill’s feet of clay into dust—but because Buchanan is known primarily as an ideological polemicist.
“Yet, in this book, he presents respectably balanced and well-documented arguments for his theses. If he is not himself a professional historian, he has absorbed the works of scores of well-reputed historians, and he carefully assesses a number of counterarguments against his position. Although Buchanan presents no previously unreported facts, he offers abundant evidence expressed in clear, forceful prose. All in all, he makes a persuasive case.
“Buchanan correctly views the two world wars as ‘two phases of a Thirty Years’ War.’ He argues that both phases were unnecessary and that Great Britain ‘turned both European wars into world wars.’
“For World War I, he maintains: ‘Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires.
“Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no Holocaust.’
“For World War II, he maintains: ‘Had Britain not given a war guarantee to Poland in March 1939, then declared war on September 3, bringing in South Africa, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, and the United States, a German-Polish war might never have become a six-year war in which fifty million would perish.’
“He argues that the decisive event in the run-up to World War II was not the infamous 1938 appeasement at Munich—because the Germans had good reason to reabsorb the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia—but the 1939 guarantee, which was foolish of the British to make and foolish of the Poles to rely on. It was foolish because Britain had no means of defending Poland. When Hitler attacked in 1939, after Polish leaders refused to return Danzig to Germany, the British could only watch helplessly. [emphasis added]
“Buchanan begins his narrative at the end of the nineteenth century and ends it at the conclusion of World War II. Churchill occupies center stage in this extended drama because he ‘was the most bellicose champion of British entry into the European war of 1914 and the German-Polish war of 1939.’
“Along the way, Buchanan adduces evidence that Kaiser Wilhelm II, a grandson of Queen Victoria and nephew of King Edward VII, did not seek war with Great Britain (in 1910, he ‘marched in Edward’s funeral—in the uniform of a British field marshal’). Likewise, 30 years later, Hitler wished to avoid war with Great Britain, whose people and empire he admired: ‘His dream was of an alliance with the British Empire, not its ruin.’
“The Lebensraum he sought lay to the east of Germany, not to the west. The Germans did not seek to ‘conquer the world,’ despite frequent claims to that effect, and in any event, they lacked the means to achieve such a conquest.
“No short review can depict the breadth, the depth, and the many fascinating details of Buchanan’s book. Read it and see for yourself. It may well challenge your most cherished beliefs about Winston Churchill and the world-shattering Thirty Years’ War of 1914–45.
Robert Higgs is a Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute. He is also the Editor at Large for The Independent Review, the Institute’s quarterly journal.
Isis is demonic…this kind of evil cries to Heaven for vengeance!…
More on the Consequences of US and Israeli Support of Anti-Assad Forces in Syria
Is ISIS Coming to Damascus?
Friday – June 5, 2015 at 12:16 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“Who rises if Assad falls?
“That question, which has bedeviled U.S. experts on the Middle East, may need updating to read: Who rises when Assad falls? For the war is going badly for Bashar Assad, whose family has ruled Syria since Richard Nixon was president.
“Assad’s situation seems more imperiled than at any time in this four-year civil-sectarian war that has cost the lives of some 220,000 soldiers, rebels and civilians, and made refugees of millions more. Last month, ISIS captured Palmyra in central Syria, as it was taking Ramadi in Iraq. A coalition, at the heart of which is the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front, seized Idlib province in northern Syria and is moving toward the coast and Latakia.
“Half of Syria has been lost to ISIS, the Nusra front, and other jihadist and rebel groups. All of Syria’s border crossings with Iraq have been lost to ISIS. All of the border crossing with Turkey, excluding Kobani, have been lost to ISIS or rebels linked to al-Qaida. Syria’s border with Lebanon is becoming a war zone. [emphasis added]
“Some 100 Russian military advisers are said to have pulled out of Syria, suggesting Vladimir Putin may be reconsidering Russia’s historic investment. Indicating the gravity of the situation, Syrian sources claim 7,000 to 10,000 foreign Shiite fighters, Iraqi and Iranian, have arrived to defend Damascus and launch an offensive to recapture Idlib.
“Israel’s deputy chief of staff, Gen. Yair Golan, who headed the Northern Command, was quoted this week, ‘The Syrian Army has, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist.’ Israeli sources report that Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, Assad’s indispensable ally, is warning that the real threats to the Shiites of Lebanon are ISIS and the Nusra Front. Fighting between Hezbollah and Syrian rebels is taking place along the Lebanese-Syrian border. [emphasis added]
“Assad has been written off before, only to survive those who predicted his demise. But given the balance of forces and the way in which the tide of battle is turning, it is hard to see how his regime and army can long resist eventual collapse.
“Arrayed against him are not only the Nusra Front and ISIS, which are attracting recruits from abroad, but also Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs, who have been clandestinely aiding Sunni rebels [whom] we regard as terrorists.
“Though the Turks have a half-million-man army, 3,000 tanks, 1,000 military aircraft, and are 60 miles from the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria, our NATO ally refuses to move. Turkey’s president sees Assad as an ally of Iran.
“The Israelis, too, see Assad as an ally of Iran and a greater enemy than an ISIS or Nusra Front with no army to threaten Israel. They have been aiding Syrian rebels on the Golan. Israeli ambassador Michael Oren said in 2013, ‘We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.’ Fine, but the ‘bad guys’ Ambassador Oren prefers have on their hands the blood of 3,000 Americans. [emphasis added]
“It is difficult to see where the Assad regime and army, under attack within and without, will get the recruits to defend that half of Syria they still hold, let alone reunite the country. So, again, the question: What happens when Assad falls? Who will protect the Christians he has sheltered? Who will protect the Shiite minority? Who will halt the massacres when they come?
“And who will seize power in Damascus?
“Right now the rival claimants would appear to be the Nusra Front, an offshoot of al-Qaida that [purportedly] brought down our Twin Towers, and ISIS, the death cult famous for the barbarity of its executions. According to The New York Times on June 4, ISIS is ’emerging as a social and political movement,’ preparing to govern its caliphate.
“Interviewed by CBS News, Gen. David Petraeus said the United States is ‘probably losing’ the war to ISIS, and we need more U.S. troops in Iraq or we run ‘the risk of losing the fight.’
“Now consider what the general is saying: America should send her best and bravest back into Iraq to defeat ISIS, while Turkey, the Saudis, the Gulf Arabs and Israel are helping bring about the defeat of a Syrian army that has been battling ISIS for years. [emphasis added]
“Our ‘friends’ in the Middle East have no problem with our fighting and dying to drive ISIS out of Iraq, while they try to bring about the fall of Assad in Syria, which would constitute a triumph for ISIS. A collapse of Assad’s army could give ISIS control of Syria. [emphasis added]
“Our ‘friends’ don’t mind this happening because it would be a defeat for Iran and the Shiite Crescent, their enemies, even if it meant a victory for ISIS and al-Qaida, our enemies.
It is time we stopped letting other nations pick the enemies for us to fight. And as our ‘friends’ are looking out for themselves first, last, and always, let us Americans begin to do the same.
http://buchanan.org/blog/is-isis-coming-to-damascus-16108
Correction of previous post:
“We obviously seem to have radically different standards…”
@ Rick
1, July 2, 2015 at 4:23 pm
“Ken Rogers
“Mostly I was surprised you’re uncritically repeating ISIS propaganda as factual.”
Your concluding that the report in question is “ISIS propaganda” clearly demonstrates that you’re not currently intellectually equipped to discuss, let alone assess, the impact of US aid to radical Islamists, past and present.
ninianpeckitt
1, July 2, 2015 at 4:12 pm
“John McCain:
“It was his speech after his defeat by President Obama. I think this is the link.”
We obviously to have radically different standards when it comes to evaluating politicians, Professor, especially those who seem totally oblivious to the imminent threat of thermonuclear war.
Ken Rogers
See the post by Personanongrata 1, July 1, 2015 at 8:13 pm,
and mine at 1, July 1, 2015 at 9:23 pm, above.
Did you overlook these, or did you just not understand them?
Mostly I was surprised you’re uncritically repeating ISIS propaganda as factual.
Here’s the document it’s supposedly based on:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
Why don’t you tell us which page includes the US welcoming ISIS.
ninianpeckitt
1, July 2, 2015 at 3:33 pm
“John McCain
“I’m talking about the character he demonstrated in delivery of his speech not his politics or anything else.”
I have no way of knowing, of course, what speech you’re alluding to, but to say you aren’t talking about “his politics or anything else” as bearing on his being a “statesman,” particularly in view of his incessant warmongering, is really painfully fatuous.
John McCain:
t was his speech after his defeat by President Obama. I think this is the link
http://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIvYmpVVrmkAyrmc3olQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZ2N0cmxpBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMg–?p=youtube+John+McCain+speech+defeat+by+Obama&vid=1a3a342e1cadc15346aa893b51101337&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.%252bCK%252bbXmSITNC9pvmF8s1Kg%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D232%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DW-TIWMWp0CI&tit=John+McCain%C2%B4s+speech+after+election+defeat&c=1&h=232&w=300&l=97&sigr=11b4bmvcq&sigt=11b1e4e3u&sigi=12oof77rr&age=1225875989&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-fullyhosted_003&hspart=iry&tt=b
John McCain
I’m talking about the character he demonstrated in delivery of his speech not his politics or anything else.
That’s the sort of performance of a Statesman who was able to capture an historic moment.
@ ninianpeckitt
1, July 1, 2015 at 5:00 pm
“Remember that origins of Freedom has its roots in the People – and the single most destructive legacy of Politics and Politicians has always been War and Pestilence.” [emphasis added]
@ ninianpeckitt
1, July 2, 2015 at 2:29 pm
“I cant see Hillary or Chelsea Clinton doing this….. but a Statesman like John McCain (or someone like him) is a different matter regardless of the politics. That is a man with real insight and more than a dash of humility.”
I have no idea how you’ve acquired your perception of John McCain as a “statesman,” but you either don’t know much about him or you have a seriously morbid sense of humor.
Pat Buchanan on John McCain’s Warmongering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee4XoVSMsJo
Pat Buchanan:”McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi”
@ Eric
1, July 2, 2015 at 9:59 am
“Saddam: What We Now Know (link) by Jim Lacey* draws from the Iraq Survey Group (re WMD) and Iraqi Perspectives Project (re terrorism).
Explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
“In the book, The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill, the author, Mr Suskind, quotes from memoranda preparing for a war dating to the first days of the administration. “One of them marked ‘secret’ says ‘Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,'” he told CBS television. [emphasis added]
“Oil contracts
“He quoted from a Pentagon document entitled ‘Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,’ which, he said, talks about carving the country’s fuel reserves up between the world’s oil companies. It talks about contractors around the world from … 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq,’ Mr Suskind said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books
“Mr O’Neill’s account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead president but driven by a ‘praetorian guard’ of hardline rightwingers led by vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit their political agenda.
“According to the former aluminum mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification.
“As Mr O’Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: ‘It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying “Go find me a way to do this.”
” ‘From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,’ Mr O’Neill told the CBS network programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections and written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O’Neill said that even as far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.”
“So, what does O’Neill reveal? According to the book, ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during his tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas. The incurious President was so opaque on some important issues that top Cabinet officials were left guessing his mind even after face-to-face meetings. Cheney is portrayed as an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals.
“O’Neill’s tone in the book is not angry or sour, though it prompted a tart response from the Administration. ‘We didn’t listen to him when he was there,’ said a top aide. ‘Why should we now?’
“But the book is blunt, and in person O’Neill can be even more so. Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME, O’Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. ‘In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction,’ he told TIME. ‘There were allegations and assertions by people.
” ‘But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence.’ “ [emphasis added]
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,574809,00.ht
“HOUSTON — Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
” ‘He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,’ said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. ‘It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, “If I have a chance to invade…if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.’
“Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. ‘Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.’ ”
(See link to full article in my post above).
.
ninianpeckitt One sentence: the US does not have the best of intentions. That’s a myth, a partial truth, a relic from a more innocent era (if there ever were such a thing).
To Jack Williams: “Best of Intentions”
I’m sure you are right.
But Americans want to see themselves as the “Good Guys”. And in my opinion that is a positive thing.
The sad thing is that there is a difference between Americans and America. and if the U.S. is really run by an Unelected Elite, every American who truly believes in freedom would want that to cease.
I cant see Hillary or Chelsea Clinton doing this….. but a Statesman like John McCain (or someone like him) is a different matter regardless of the politics. That is a man with real insight and more than a dash of humility. The politics doesn’t really matter its more or less the same regardless of who wins…..
Reblogged this on shandizhuo.
@ Rick
1, July 2, 2015 at 12:32 pm
“Ken Rogers
“How did you determine Israeli and US Government policy is for Muslims to behead other Muslims? “This seems like it ought to be big news.”
See the post by Personanongrata 1, July 1, 2015 at 8:13 pm,
and mine at 1, July 1, 2015 at 9:23 pm, above.
Did you overlook these, or did you just not understand them?
John Smith: “Napoleon’s playbook”
Yours is the textbook Russian view.
It’s true that democracy and liberty run counter to the Russian-promoted autocrats.
At the same time, it’s also true that a nation turning to democracy and liberty in replacement of tyranny requires security and stability at foundation, like anyone else.
Tyrants pose it as an either/or choice and promise security and stability for the sacrifice of higher ‘we the people’ liberal aspirations.
The American approach is that security and stability can be had with democracy and liberty. Whether post-Japanese Korea or post-Saddam (and pre-Obama) Iraq, successful US intervention builds up the partner nation with aid across the spectrum for both parts, encompassing foundational security and economic and humanitarian infrastructure.
The abandonment of the nascently liberalizing Iraq under Obama combined with Obama’s ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring sacrificed the foundational security and stability components in the ‘democracy and liberty’ formula and thereby boosted the Russian narrative that only autocrats, in contrast to the “shibboleths of democracy and liberty”, can provide security and stability against the nightmare likes of ISIS.
Ken Rogers
Only extreme obtuseness or egregious dishonesty confuses criticism of Israeli and US government policies with being anti-Semitic or “anti-American” (whatever that is).
How did you determine Israeli and US Government policy is for Muslims to behead other Muslims? This seems like it ought to be big news.