I heard there were two very powerful explosions at the airport. An unused explosive outfit was also found. An hour later the Maelbeek subway, 300 meters from the EC main building, exploded. More than 35 killed, 200 wounded, many very grievously. (Such coordination is achieved thanks to encrypted Apple I Phones, and the like; as we will see below, US plutocracy did not just bring you Islamism, it makes it safe, for terrorists; don’t worry for the Apple Plutos, they are also safe, in their private enclaves protected by their own private security forces.)
Recent policies played a role: four terrorists, at least, joined the refugee flow to make the attacks in Paris (two exploded themselves). They had nothing to do with France, aside from the explosive desire to kill human beings in France.
However, the greater problem is much deeper than that, as I have documented in countless essays. The gist of it is this: if one reads the Qur’an and the Hadith very carefully (as I have) one discovers that, from the very beginning, Islam was conceived as an ideology to attack the Greco-Roman West (and even then Zoroastrian Persia). The Prophet Muhammad explained that, after a tough and long war between Rome and Persia, it was time, the first time in a thousand years, when the Arabs will finally be able to raid the civilized world (the way they used to, before).
Those who have finished agonizing are at now peace, in Brussels airport, thanks to the religion of eternal peace
Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.
Thus, where does the notion that “Islamophobia is racism” come from?
In the 1930s, American plutocrats, fossil fuel magnates, made an alliance with Ibn Saud, who was in the process of finalizing his acquisition of Arabia by force. The Saud family had, since the 18C, made an alliance with Wahhab, a fanatic Salafist Fundamentalist.
Islam Fundamentalism had been made unlawful by the Kurd Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, in thle 12C. The penalty for preaching it was death.
Wahhab’s fanaticism gave a religious excuse for the Saudi to use divine violence.
In the 1930s, the Saudi dictatorship gave an excuse for the oil men to make Saudi Arabia into their thing, no question asked. In 1945, president Roosevelt made the alliance with Ibn Saud official; the Saudis would recycle their profits on Wall Street (and, later, London). (Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was getting Saudi financing and Nazi help.)
This very profitable system was quickly extended by US special services and the like: the CIA promoted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Shia in Iran against Prime Minister Mossadegh. Mossadegh wanted to partly nationailze the big British and American companies in Iran. The CIA armed, financed and excited Ayatollah Khomeini and his subordinates.
At the same time, the USA pursued Roosevelt’s wilful and determined program to eject France (and thus Britain) from all its zones of influence (using the Muslim approach).
In Pakistan, the CIA pushed the state toward Islamization. Then Pakistani Islamists were used to destabilize Afghanistan where the government was keen to exploit its underground riches in cooperation with France and Russia.
That was not enough, so on July 3, 1979, president Jimmy carter gave the secret order to the CIA of attacking directly Afghanistan. The CIA and the SIA (Saudi Intelligence Agency) went to find Bin Laden, a young engineer and heir known for his Muslim Fundamentalism. He was put in charge of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with Saudi and American financing. Algerians were also trained to fight there. They went back to Algeria to fight the government, and even society, constituting the GIA (Group Islamiste Arme’). France intervened discreetly (giving the green light for the army to block elections, and providing training and equipment). More than 200,000 were killed… in Algeria alone.
And so on.
As Picard says, we are confronted to a mess, a mix between a conspiracy satanic (Pluto!) between fossil fuel Western plutocrats and deeper feudal, and organized crime forces.
So where does the “Islamophobia is racism” slogan come from? Famous, but, fundamentally second-rate, philosophers in the West (and their even cheaper spiritual descendants).
After 1945, many of these thinkers for hire, who used to love the Nazis or Soviets a few years earlier, fell in love with all things American. Thus they produced a philosophical system which seduced Washington and Wall Street (when not Moscow).
Not that there was a contradiction between Soviet Moscow and Wall Street’s Washington: when Israel, France and Britain decided to attack Nasser (shortly before supported by the CIA), Moscow and Washington became allies: Moscow invaded Hungary, threatened to atom bomb Paris and London, while the USA, by acquiescing, implicitly threatened the same, while explicitly making other threats, and had France and Britain condemned by the United Nations General Assembly.
Thus, what we are confronting is not just terrorism, but a form of mental corruption which has undermined Western thought, intimately tied up with the powers that be. Preaching Islamist terror should be viewed as accessory to mass murder. Plutocracy and its mental conspiracies is an even deeper ill… which does not bring just financial crises, inequality and impoverishment. It brings a weakening of all mental faculties, including those of the heart.
The Islamist State said: “Islamic State fighters carried out a series of bombings with explosive belts and devices on Tuesday, targeting… the Belgian capital Brussels, a country participating in the coalition against the Islamic State… Islamic State fighters opened fire inside the Zaventem airport, before several of them detonated their explosive belts, as a martyrdom bomber detonated his explosive belt in the Maalbeek metro station.”
Why do these Muslim terrorists want to die as “martyrs” so much? Why not just to drop the explosives in a luggage? (As one of the bombers, the man with the hat, did?) It’s not all about the fact that the Qur’an said that Muslim martyrs dying for god will go to paradise (bypassing Final Judgment by god). It’s also about the fact these killers have had to live in the world. They have had to go through the crowds of women, children, old people, and they had to decided to kill, maim, and hurt them all. It’s hard, even for monsters. How to you decide to explode a three-year old child? Well, you distract yourself by your own death, and by deciding your cause is so worthy, not only it justifies killing three-year olds, but also, oneself. Besides, how could they live with themselves thereafter?
[This post will be modified eminently, with links added.]
Patrice Ayme’
Tags: Brussel Attacks, civilization., conspiracy, Ibn Saud, Islam, Islamism, Muhammad, Oil Men, plutocracy, Saudi Arabia
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 
March 23, 2016 at 1:37 pm |
Agree on all. Just an aside:
The joint US-USSR action against the French-British-Isreaeli Suez operation was not in support of Islamism, which Nasser ruthlessly suppressed. It was a stop to the rebirth of European military capabilities, which stood in the way of the grand plan to evict Europe from its former playgrounds. And not a moment too soon: military experts agreed that the expedition had been a full military success.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/RRW.htm
As you know, the two countries reacted differently to that betrayal by their so-called ally: the UK came back into the US fold, becoming in effect a provider of low-cost Blackwater units under the Union Jack – but it sulked enough to reject all requests to take part in the Vietnam caper. France bristled and went on a path of military and defence independence, as it could not trust the US alliance anymore. It also provided Israel with the bomb, secretly because the US adamantly opposed this, despite the very real threat against Israel’s existence at the time (an episode conveniently forgotten by Tel-Aviv).
LikeLike
March 23, 2016 at 2:59 pm |
Dear Dominique: Thanks for the precision. I knew this, but I was not going to make a treaty on it (at this point!) I should use your remarks for an essay on the question, as it is a crucial part of my thesis (namely that Fundamental Islam/Wahhabism/Salafism is fundamentally a US plutocrat conspiracy at the root).
Nasser was born of a movement which included the Muslim Brotherhood (and was US instigated). Later, he turned against his former accomplices, as coup authors often do. So Nasser became loudly anti-Muslim, and, later, anti-American.
The expedition had indeed been a complete success.
France and Britain should have stopped trusting the USA in 1939. But of course they had no choice, but love their master torturer, while making him believe they did not see through his game.
Things psychological grow: Nasser, tactically anti-Muslim Brotherhood, because they had made a coup together, became genuinely anti-Muslim later. Same for his anti-Americanism.
The Brits, those for BREXIT, are still all in love with the USA, and living the American/plutocratic dream, watching, transfixed, the battle of plutocratic Oxford and Cambridge fight each other on the Thames as it were the world’s most important event.
Meanwhile, a law should be passed, outlawing the sale of phones which the state of nominally We-The-People, cannot break.
The providing of French nuclear bomb know-how to Israel was not that secret, as the French had 5,000 workers doing that at Demona in Israel… So the US knew, it’s just that the Main Stream media did not talk about it… Today’s Israeli government is playing the US Pluto violin for all what it’s worth… Now they want 4 billion $ of yearly subsidies… And that’s just the tip of the iceberg….
LikeLike
March 23, 2016 at 9:33 pm |
I am very pleased to read that people rather more savvy and learned than me have reached a similarly-put view of the Suez endgame(s) : the Brits were all “if you can’t beat them, join them”, the French were “screw you, we’re going our own way”, and the Israelis were “the US policy makers… how much? That cheap!?”
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 7:22 pm |
Indeed.
An aside: the relationship between Israel and the USA is very complex. An example: Israel has been a way to develop better anti-missile missiles…
LikeLike
March 23, 2016 at 9:12 pm |
Dear Patrice, let me write an alternative interpretation to history to one represented by you.
I would start with the motto, individuals even if in position of leaders do not write history. From time to time they can use in short term an opportunistic situation to create a new historical trend or event, that may have a long run effect on historical development. So has done Napoleon, who would be no one if born 10 years earlier or later, the same is truth for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. But as it happened they were in the right place in the right time, and were extremely lucky. First because they were not killed or arrested when the others were, and this cleared the stage from competition. Then they had the talent to recruit the ignorant masses, who know nothing about historicism and causality in history, yet they are doing without any intention history. The most they know are some fairy tales, they represent for them realities and real events,. ( This is why inheritance is the most popular way how to choose presidents, (viz. Clinton, Kennedy and Bush family in the US or Kim family in N.Korea, :)).
Now as to US- Saud conspiracy. US understood long before WWII that colonialism is not sustainable, and not a very ineffective way how o exploit world resources needed for national and corporate enrichment. So their policy was to support local lords-barons in places with potential resources to be exploited. The US leaders understanding the potential danger of the ignorant masses, who may turn to any direction, if someone successfully recruits them for his cause, tried to bribe the masses by supporting mass consumption policy.
On the other side of the world, the Russians, who after WWII, saw themselves as equal competitors to the US as world leaders, decided to implement a neo-imperialistic policy by using brute force, despotism and oppression of all the people in their sphere of influence. Because of the atomic weapons, in spite of absolute animosity to each other, these two imperial powers, had to respect each other. But it did not mean that they did not try to destroy each other, just they have done it with one restriction, no atomic weapons.
In this war every mean became legal, except of the mentioned atom bomb. So if they came to conclusion that Mr. Mossadegh has tendency to adopt pro Soviet policy, they have used any means to remove him from power. But it seems the CIA conspirators where not so sophisticated to make differentiation between Socialism, that in its essence was pro-Stalinism and Socialism that represented anti religiousness and secularism as it was in case of Mossadegh or Nasser. So they fought against the Chilean socialism, Korean and Vietnam socialism, and tried to delegitimize every political leadership that looked for them pro Soviet. In many places they succeeded to prevent a bigger evil like in S.Korea, but in many places failed, and had to support even worse evil than the alternative Soviet evil, just to win the war on the grand scale. Today as the Soviet system collapsed, and not because of the US foreign policy, but due to the desire of the people in the Soviet block for freedom and free enterprise economic system, it is easy to criticize the acts of CIA, and their support for regimes like the Saudi regime, all the Arab dictators regime, corrupt South American regimes, etc. but at the time all the means seemed to justify the grand cause.
To make it short, the presumable conspirators are not smart enough to make kind of conspiracy you are suggesting they are doing.
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 7:29 pm |
Dear Eugen:
That individuals do not determine as much as one often believes is why I am so oriented towards studying mentalities. However, some individuals had a determining influence, some could have changed history (Caesar or Julian, had they lived longer). Napoleon, an unmitigated disaster, just messed things up (although all too many French still confuse him with Caesar; Caesar, in spite of his shortcomings was a superior sort, and Napoleon, an inferior one).
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 7:40 pm |
BTW, Hela Ouardi, a Tunisian researcher (digging inside the texts) points out the many assassination attempts against the Prophet Muhammad. And the fact he was abused by his companions, who forbade him to write the testament he wanted to write. Muhammad believed he was being poisoned. Not just as he died, but in previous circumstances. Two days to bury him, unusual.
Fatima, the daughter of the prophet, mom of the beloved grandsons of the Prophet, was assassinated within weeks.
Hela Ouardi says that this is the initial flaw of Islam, the recourse to violence, right from the start, comparable to a programmation mistake in a computer, right from the start.
Ms. Ouardi went through all the sacred texts (Sunni or Shia). Up to very recently, most of these texts had not even been studied.
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 11:12 pm |
[…] have an overall conspiracy theory of the contemporary rise of Extremely Violent IsLam (EVIL): the petrol plutocrats from the US […]
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 3:12 am |
picard578 said
March 23, 2016 at 7:02 pm
“Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.”
Agreed, and it shows. I haven’t read the Qur’an that carefully, but I have done a lot of side research (still ongoing, the article isn’t nearly finished yet). Islam indeed is an ideology against civilization, and I mean civilization, in general. To humanity, it is as great danger as climate changes and GMO food (apparently the notion from Idiocracy – that dumb breed most quickly – is true in case of Islam).
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 3:14 am |
I will add a comment abstracting the work of a Tunisian researcher, who just wrote a book:”Derniers Jours Du Prophete” (Last days Prophet), just published. See next essay on the subject, March 24, 2016.
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 3:15 am |
vyse said
March 24, 2016 at 11:25 am
“So where does the “Islamophobia is racism” slogan come from?”
I think one of the main reasoning behind that (aside from raw hypocrisy, as political figures trying to look wise), is the will to protect ‘muslim’ populations from the hate generated by islamists. They see ‘normal’ people calling themselves ‘muslims’, and terrorists refering to themselves essentially as ‘true muslims’.
IMHO, there is a real struggle from occidentals to deal whith how ‘muslim’ can mean either being a normal person (normal meaning you could replace ‘muslim’ by other designation without suffering big consequences in social interactions), or it can mean terrorist. The most painfull thing to consider, is that Qu’ran reading indeed leads toward warship, colonisation and mostly abolition of humanity, which would make fundamentalists look more sincere in declaring themselves ‘muslims, whilst people trying to live as everyone else will be uncomfortable with his muslim identity, and will soon pretend that Qu’ran is respectfull of other, Islam means peace, etc, all that being very easily disproven by reading the book…
But, does that mean that these people are disguised ennemies, secretly whishing for sharia to be forced upon occident?
Obviously not (ok probably there are some who are like that, but not the most significant part). Actually it seems these people are NOT muslims, by the meaning of someone who follow the path of Allah as decribed in Qu’ran. They are telling to be muslims because… They were always told so!
One always judge others in reference to himself. Occidental culture has been formed under deep judeo-christian influence. When they consider the notion of ‘religion’, they think about their way of believing. Christianism intends that the believer turns himself toward God – he has to ‘found God’, which means it is HIS will, and the link created with the divinity have an intimate dimention. But Islam ain’t like that. When you’re born in muslim familly, you’re told that:
-You are muslim.(religion is imposed by authority, at child age)
-There is only one God and it is Allah. There is only one prophet and it is Muhammad. (Introduction to the Dogma)
-From now on you have to learn and repeat Qu’ran verses, even if you don’t understand them. (Argumantably an element of brainwashing by repetition / unconditional submition)
-People not following that path are Evil. (So you’re locked into that path, since any other is wrong)
-Not believing in that, or even considering the option of having doubts makes you evil too. (Abolition of human capacity of thinking by himself)
-Doing that -not following islam as imposed by authority- would expose you to consequences, and will expose those close to you too. (Now it become concrete, threatening is used to force islam into the believer by fear. It is mostly true in countries where islam is officialised at state level -Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Pakistan… There are countless exemples where girls -or even young boys- are raped and / or killed under the -unproven- pretext of pretended apostolat / fault against islamic authority commited by the victim or someone relative.)
All that has an obvious impact: Weather you sincerely ‘believe’ in it or not, you will accept being ‘muslim’ and won’t derogate to the protocol, as it is your very inetrest to do so. Thus you will obey the HUMANS who declared themselves of divine authority.
When I say most people decribing themselves as muslims are NOT muslims, I really mean it. They are just convinced of it because it’s part of their identity since they were childs, and now they are just trying hard to put all the violent stuff aside and focus on the few ‘beautifull’ parts of Qu’ran, since they are just random people like most of humanity who only whishes to live in peace and prosperate.
Occidentals are just confused into making it a religion (which they’ve deemed respectable since they were themslves deeply compromised into ‘blind believing’ by christianism -mainly. ‘Credo quia absurdom’ as a long time leitmotiv…) Islam is not a religion though, it is a dogma, and its essence is similar to what is used by sects around the world (strong usage of human authority, threatening, instillation of fear and animosity against ‘ennemies’ -those who are susceptible to drag you away of the sect, leading to high level of communautarism, isolation from ‘the rest of the world’.)
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 3:17 am |
picard578 said
March 24, 2016 at 7:23 pm
“But, does that mean that these people are disguised ennemies, secretly whishing for sharia to be forced upon occident?”
Many don’t know what is written in Qur’an, and so can be easily radicalized by somebody who *does* know. Radical Islam is the only genuine Islam, everything else is an aberration. Of course, some reject Islam due to ethical principles once they realize what Islam really means, but due to external pressure, most go with the flow.
So all Muslims are *potential* enemies, but most of them are not actual enemies until they fall into hands of Imam or ISIL’s religious “shepards”. And some of them actually abandon Islam once they realize what it is… but Muslims are still human, and humans are mostly cowards who blindly follow guidance from authority figures and majority around them. And *that* is the problem.
“When I say most people decribing themselves as muslims are NOT muslims, I really mean it. They are just convinced of it because it’s part of their identity since they were childs, and now they are just trying hard to put all the violent stuff aside and focus on the few ‘beautifull’ parts of Qu’ran, since they are just random people like most of humanity who only whishes to live in peace and prosperate.”
Issue is, most Muslims don’t even know what is written in Qur’an. And people are not inherently good or evil, they are as they are raised. Humans are, however, inherently idiots. If some authority figure – in Muslim case, Qur’an or Imam – repeats some “truth” (e.g. you must kill nonbelievers) a certain number of times, most people will start to believe it. The only “safe” bet is to get rid of Islam alltogether – unlike Bible’s verses of violence, which are for the most part either close-ended or ambigious, those in Qur’an are open-ended and very much unambigious.
“Islam is not a religion though, it is a dogma, and its essence is similar to what is used by sects around the world (strong usage of human authority, threatening, instillation of fear and animosity against ‘ennemies’ -those who are susceptible to drag you away of the sect, leading to high level of communautarism, isolation from ‘the rest of the world’.”
To be fair, Christianity used to be a dogma as well… but it was also far more liable to humanization than Islam is.
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 8:38 pm |
You wrote: does that mean that these people are disguised ennemies, secretly whishing for sharia to be forced upon occident?Obviously not……
You are asking the wrong question, the real question should be: “Are these people, who left their Muslim home land, (obviously because they did not like their life in political, social and economic system the Muslim countries impose on their citizens due to their belief in Islam), ready to reject Islam as a legitimate faith and stop to try to spread it in the western countries, or in contrary they want rather to import it to their liberal “host” countries”, and by it destroying the liberal open societies there? By the way, surprisingly no Syrian refugee tried to cross the border to Saudi Arabia, in-spite of its riches, official Islam and lots of uninhabited land.
ISIS is attractive to so many Muslims because its main ideology is caliphate, which stands the historical aim to create one Muslim state all over the world, where only believers in one God will live (Christians and Jews are allowed to live as subordinated citizens). I didn’t find to many religious Muslims, who doesn’t identify themselves with this ideology, the best they say is: “it is not practical and not possible today to create such a caliphate”. Yet they still believe that the Muslim World under Muslim Law, Muslim attitude towards women and minorities, sexual morality with which comes the sexual violence, support of political system of dictatorship, in-spate of their despotism, etc. is the ideal World.
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 2:59 pm |
Dear Eugen: The followers of the Islamist State are not those who rejected Islamist countries and came to Europe (the USA is a different story). It is their children. The parents are in general revolted by what their children became. And why did the children revolt? Because they were mistreated. How were they mistreated? [A] Through bad education, poor, or no employment. This means that the rise of Islamism is tied to the rise of the 1% and plutocracy.
This was my reasoning. The reasoning of the devious pseudo-left is different. At point [A] the logics differ: The pseudo-left (but truly slave to the establishment) rolls out [I], the Islamist explanation: that the children of Muslim immigrants were mistreated for their Islamism (or lack thereof). So roll out more mosques and Islamist propaganda to compensate. Why so idiotic? Divide and rule!
PA
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 3:20 am |
Luis said
March 24, 2016 at 6:34 pm
“Thus, from the beginning, Islam was conceived as war ideology against civilization.”
Why do you equate “civilisation” per se as the “Roman-Greco West”? Used in this way, “civilisation” becomes simply a loaded word which can be wielded to produce whatever meaning one wants. But didn’t Islamic civilisations exist? Weren’t they, indeed, ahead of Europe for a long time in terms of science?
“Thus, where does the notion that “Islamophobia is racism” come from?”
You answered this question, without knowing it, two paragraphs back, when you wrote:
“The gist of it is this: if one reads the Qur’an and the Hadith very carefully (as I have) one discovers that, from the very beginning, Islam was conceived as an ideoiogy to attack the Greco-Roman West (and even then Zoroastrian Persia).”
The key point here is that most people who are Islamophobes (like the people who rally around figures such as Trump and are most taken in by chauvinist calls to “make [add particular nativist identity here] great again”) HAVEN’T “carefully read” the Qur’an and the Hadith, and many of those who have done so are nevertheless apologists for US imperialism (like Sam Harris).
They wield their Islamophobia as war propaganda – and this is so even if every single thing they say about Islam is perfectly accurate. Why? Because, in the absence of a strong critique of the opposing fundamentalism (in this case, imperial fundamentalism) and its basic features and historical continuities, to spout denunciations of Islam is the exact same thing as to give succor to imperialists and militarists who are fulfilling an imperialist and militarist agenda regardless of the ideological and religious affiliations of their target populations.
You don’t get to choose how imperialists will utilize your denunciations of Islam, no mater how sincere or “fair” you’re being, but you can be sure that they will utilize them and co-opt them.
Hence, whether you consciously desire it or not, denunciations of Islam in the absence of a concrete critique of the world situation as it relates to imperialism and national chauvinism is to buttress the latter, and that’s why Islamophobia is indeed, by and large, racism, and white nativist racism at that. Please note that I’m not saying that you’re not cognizant of these things, only that most people who are Islamophobes aren’t, and that this is what facilitates the racist content of Islamophobia as it exists in the world now.
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 9:17 pm |
You wrote: …But didn’t Islamic civilisations exist? Weren’t they, indeed, ahead of Europe for a long time in terms of science?
Yes, they were, and so were the Chinese the Japanese and some other South-East Asians. And then they get stacked, until they realized that the Europeans are away ahead. At first they tried to defend their old ways and political system, mainly the old ruling elites (boxer rebellion). But then a revolution happened, which unfortunately failed to create a modern state out of China and not only because of the Chinese, but also because of the foreign colonialists melding in the Chinese affairs. Since the late seventies of last century China adopted the Western way of running economy. Its political system, even if not democratic like in the west, is far from the despotism as we can observe in most of the Muslim countries. The Chinese Asian society, even if continuing their own traditions, is not opposing to implement the western way of thinking and living, and definitely it is not aggressive towards it.
You speak about Imperialism and probably you mean the Western imperialism. But then what about the Muslim imperialism? The Caliphate ideology as it was implemented in early Islam and then by the Ottomans and Moguls wasn’t about imperialism.
You denounce Islamophobia, but historically whenever Islam had the military power it was imperialistic, cruel, and destructive to other cultures.
And more of it. Some Afro-Americans adopted Islam, without to be aware of the crucial part the Muslims had in the American slavery, who were the one who supplied the African slaves to ports in West Africa.
The Muslims have to face themselves in the mirror and stop to blame the others for their misery. Their misery is self-made.
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 8:41 am |
One more remark. Muslim extremists cannot be fight by weapons and pure military means. The terrorists are civilians and live among civilians. If to fight the Muslim terrorism, the fight have to be against their mythology, believes, stories they cultivate. Their leaders ared not military man but preachers of false truths.
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 6:09 pm |
Islamist State leadership is all disgruntled Saddam Hussein’s army officers. The preacher in sight is just an ornament. Fundamentalist Islam, just a tool. As usual…
LikeLike
March 25, 2016 at 6:15 pm |
Latest numbers: 10,000 Jihadists (“Fiche S”) in France says Interior Ministry. Defense minister ISIS killed last week, number two killed this week
LikeLike