Director of Respiratory Protection System Company Warns ISIS Will Launch Chemical Attack in London’s Tube
Anti-Islamist Talk Cancelled at Trinity College Over Fear of ‘Antagonising’ Muslim Students
24 Mar 2015 by Donna Rachel Edmunds
An Iranian human rights activist who has described Islam as a “totalitarian global threat” has had her speaking engagement at Trinity College, Dublin (TCD) cancelled. Refusal to comply with a unique set of restrictions not placed on other speakers, including proponents of Sharia law, was the reason given.
Maryam Namazie, who regularly receives death threats for speaking out against Islamists, was due to give a talk to the university’s Society for International Affairs (SOFIA) on Monday titled: Apostasy and the Rise of Islamism. But the event was cancelled when she refused to comply with last minute restrictions, including limiting the audience to Trinity College students who are also members of the society and the addition of a moderator to add “balance” to the proceedings.
SOFIA has since tried to distance itself from the cancellation of the event, claiming that Ms Namazie pulled out following a “miscommunication” over the rules on speakers. Aoife McLoughlin-Ngo, the chair of SOFIA even sought to claim that none of SOFIA’s events are open to an outside audience, though she herself had posted a link to the event on Facebook just days earlier stating: “Hey guys, there are 2 event pages – the page I’m linking is open to people outside of SOFIA Members page.”
Ms Namazie is adamant that the college deliberately blocked her appearance to appease Muslim students who may be offended by the contents of her speech.
“I’ve just been informed that college security (why security?) has claimed that the event would show the college is “one-sided” and would be “antagonising” to “Muslim students” she wrote on her blog on last Friday. “They threatened to cancel my talk [unless the conditions are met]. http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/03/20/tcd/
“I, however, will not be submitting to any conditions, particularly since such conditions are not usually placed on other speakers.
“I intend to speak on Monday as initially planned without any restrictions and conditions and ask that TCD give me immediate assurances that I will be able to do so.”
The College did not give those assurances and the event was cancelled. Their refusal to do so is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that only last month, on 25th February, Kamal El Mekki was given a platform to speak at the university at an event co-hosted by the TCD Muslim Students Association and the Irish branch of the al-Maghrib Institute, which promotes Salafist Islam on campuses across the world.
Questions were raised with the college’s Central Societies Committee over the suitability of El Mekki as a speaker as he has in the past advocated the use of the death penalty for apostates and stoning of adulterers. When the Committee was shown a video of El Mekki explaining his views, Ms Namazie says they responded that they “could not see why there can even be a discussion about cancelling the event” and that his video was simply “explanatory and not advocatory”.
His event was allowed to go ahead without the restrictions that the university sought to impose on Ms Namazie.
“It is unsettling because these people are given free access to a campus, while those who oppose violence and speak out against the violation of rights of non-Muslims and Muslims alike have restrictions placed on them,” Ms Namazie told independent.ie
“If you criticise the Islamist movement, which is a far right political movement, you are seen as attacking ordinary Muslims – and this is not the case. Muslims are not a homogenous group. If you criticise the English Defence League, you’re not attacking the English.
“It is no surprise why we see so many young people turn to ISIS when no discussion is allowed to take place without concerns that Islamists might be offended.”
She has vowed to speak at the university and has said on her blog that she is currently in discussion with a number of other societies on how this might be achieved.
In a separate incident, the hate preacher Anjem Choudary has been invited to speak at Oxford University despite being on bail under suspicion of belonging to banned terrorist groups. He has been sent a letter by the Oxford union debating society inviting him to speak on the motion: “This house believes that radicalism is born at home.”
According to the Daily Mail, the students wrote that it would be a “great privilege” to have Mr Choudary appear as the “star speaker”, and gave him a choice of dates on which to do so.
Yesterday Mr Choudary brandished the letter before the Houses of Parliament, crowing: “I am still on police bail after being arrested by Scotland Yard in September last year. But the police can’t stop me from speaking. They can’t stop me from going to the Oxford Union where I’ve been invited to speak.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/24/anti-islamist-talk-cancelled-at-trinity-college-over-fear-of-antagonising-muslim-students/
—-
Sweden’s Foreign Minister Now Enemy of the Prophet
Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström wanted to lecture the Arab League on human rights. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman was not amused. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)
March 21, 2015 by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard
Anti-Islamist Talk Cancelled at Trinity College Over Fear of ‘Antagonising’ Muslim Students
Evidently, Sweden’s Foreign Minister was unaware that that by criticizing Islamic sharia customs, such as flogging a blogger a thousand times and the ill-treatment of women, she was, in fact, seen as turning against Islam itself.
There appears to be a genuine but concerning lack of knowledge in the Swedish government about Islam and Islamic affairs.
“It makes no difference what she says. In Islam, it is for Muslims to determine whether or not one has criticized their religion.” — Johannes J.G. Jansen, author and historian of Islam.
From a Muslim perspective, any criticism or infringement of sharia law and Muslims’ obligation to wage jihad [war in the service of Islam] is a violation of their freedom of religion.
In other words, it is incumbent on Muslims to “terrify” non-Muslims (referring to the Koran 8:60). But when they succeed, Muslim spokesmen accuse their frightened victims of suffering from “Islamophobia,” and demand that Western authorities denounce and persecute people beset by the psychiatric malady.
There is nothing, however, to indicate that Margot Wallström and other members of the Swedish government have been driven by fear. They have no knowledge of what orthodox Islam is about, and evidently believe that the religion is benevolent and peaceful, but unfortunately hijacked or misinterpreted by evil men.
As predicted, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström’s criticism of “medieval” conditions in Saudi Arabia has caused great parts of the Muslim world to rise up in anger against her and Sweden, the country she represents.
“Almost the entire Muslim world joins in the criticism of Wallström,” wrote the Swedish national daily Dagens Nyheter on March 19, adding that around thirty Muslim countries have distanced themselves from Wallström’s comments. The Arab League has denounced her for criticizing the lack of human rights in Saudi Arabia, and on Saturday the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which represents 57 Arab and Muslim states, as well as the Palestinians, accused her of having “degraded Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions”.
Dagens Nyheter quotes Middle East expert Marianne Laanatza, from the universities of Stockholm and Lund, as saying that Sweden’s troubles may escalate. In addition, Middle East analyst Per Jönsson, from Sweden’s Foreign Policy Institute, notes that the OIC’s reaction implies that almost the entire Muslim world, including Shia Muslim states and countries in Southeast Asia, have now turned their backs on Sweden. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already recalled their ambassadors from Sweden; Per Jönsson fears that others will follow their example.
In response, Wallström held a crisis meeting on March 19 with representatives of around thirty Swedish enterprises that have business interests in the Gulf region. As of this writing, the outcome of the meeting is unknown. Saudi Arabia has already announced that is will deny entry visas to representatives of Swedish companies. Clearly, Swedish enterprises are in significant trouble.
Evidently, Sweden’s Foreign Minister was unaware that by criticizing Islamic sharia customs, such as flogging a blogger a thousand times and the ill-treatment of women, she was, in fact, seen as turning against Islam itself.
The Swedish government’s ignorance was amply demonstrated when Gatestone called Margot Wallström’s press spokesman, Erik Boman.
Gatestone asked if he was aware that practices such as the death penalty for blasphemy, flogging and barring women from driving a car are based on the Koran. He said he was not. Nor, he said, had he heard of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states that all human rights must be based solely on sharia law, and rejects human rights as expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Veronica Nordlund, from the Swedish Foreign Ministry’s press service, told Gatestone that she has heard of the Cairo Declaration, but thinks that Saudi Arabia has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Saudi Arabia did not, in fact, sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It abstained, claiming the Declaration violated sharia law. [1]
All in all, there appears to be a genuine but concerning lack of knowledge in the Swedish government about Islam and Islamic affairs.
The prominent Dutch Islam expert, Professor Johannes “Hans” J.G. Jansen — author of an influential biography of Muhammad — said he does not think Margot Wallström knows what she has gotten herself into.
Asked if the Swedish Foreign Minister can criticize Saudi sharia practices such as flogging, and call them “medieval,” without offending Islam, professor Jansen says that this would be impossible.
Gatestone: “But now she claims that it had not been her intention to criticize Islam?”
Jansen: “It makes no difference what she says. In Islam, it is for Muslims to determine whether or not one has criticized their religion. From a Muslim perspective, the Foreign Minister’s worst transgression is to have labeled Saudi practices ‘medieval.’ Muslims never use that term when talking about themselves. They only use it with reference to other parts of the world, for example Europe. The Saudis see themselves as the inheritors and custodians of Islam’s Golden Age in the seventh century, which must not be labeled medieval.”
Jansen notes that from a Muslim perspective, any criticism or infringement of sharia law and Muslims’ obligation to wage jihad [war in the service of Islam] is a violation of their freedom of religion.
The same, he continued, goes for Muslims’ duty to strike terror into the hearts of non-Muslims. Jansen points to the Koran’s Sura 8, verse 60:
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war, by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
In other words, it is incumbent on Muslims to “terrify” non-Muslims. But strangely, when they succeed, Muslim spokesmen accuse their frightened victims of suffering from “Islamophobia,” and demand that Western authorities denounce and persecute people who are beset by this “psychiatric” malady.
There is nothing, however, to indicate that Margot Wallström and other members of the Swedish government and political establishment have been driven by fear. They have no knowledge of what orthodox Islam is all about and evidently believe that the religion is benevolent and peaceful, but unfortunately hijacked or misinterpreted by evil men.
As if more proof of Sweden’s incomprehension were needed, Margot Wallström stood up in the Swedish parliament on March 20, and claimed that she had no intention of criticizing Islam. The Swedish government, she said, will “safeguard and develop the relations Sweden has had with Saudi Arabia through the years. … We have the greatest respect for Islam as a world religion and for its contribution to our common civilization.”
Wallström and her government have now come in for the surprise of their lives. The good-hearted Foreign Minister suddenly finds herself denounced all over the Muslim world as an enemy of the prophet.
It will be critical to see how Wallström intends to extricate herself from her unwanted position as one of the world’s most reviled offenders of Islam.
Will she retract her criticism of Saudi flogging and misogyny, and announce that it was never her intention to offend the great Saudi nation or its culture? In that case, she will have dealt a devastating blow to Sweden’s claim to be a “moral superpower” and to a foreign policy based on human rights and feminism.
Or will she stand by her words and accept that Sweden — and any other country in Europe that claims to stand for humanistic values and the primacy of human rights — is in for a debacle that may well be more severe than what Denmark experienced during the Muhammad cartoon crisis in 2005/2006?
There is increasing talk among observers that Wallström will have to step down, and that Sweden will have to accept a global role more commensurate with its knowledge of world affairs.
Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard are editors-in-chief of Dispatch International.
[1] Nisrine Abiad (2008) “Sharia, Muslim states and international human rights treaty obligations: a comparative study. BIICL. pp. 60-65 ISBN 978-1-905221-41-7
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5423/sweden-saudi-arabia-wallstrom
—
Director of Respiratory Protection System Company Warns ISIS Will Launch Chemical Attack in London’s Tube
March 23, 2015 by Kurt Nimmo
The managing director of a company that sells respiratory protection system technology says the Islamic State will likely conduct a chlorine gas attack at British sporting events or in the Tube, London’s underground public rapid transit system.
“I am convinced that IS fighters are all being given training in chemical weapons and the British ones, who are likely to be more educated, will all be targeted in the hope they may return home,” said Colonel de Bretton-Gordon.
“This could happen on a train or tube or even at a big football match. Acquiring weapons and ammunition is very difficult in the UK but you can get up to 90 tonnes of chlorine without any license,” he said.
Chlorine gas was used during the First World War. Chlorine is relatively easy to obtain and use.
Earlier this month, the Security Council of the Kurdish region in Iraq accused ISIS of using chlorine gas as a chemical weapon against its peshmerga forces in January.
It claimed laboratory analysis showed “the samples contained levels of chlorine that suggested the substance was used in weaponized form,” although the Kurds refused to identify the lab.
ISIS had reportedly launched chlorine gas attacks in Iraq’s Anbar province and in the town of Duluiyah last year, according to unconfirmed reports.
Iraqi News reported in September that several members of the Iraqi Parliament accused the terror group of killing 400 troops with chlorine gas in Saqlawiyah, north of Fallujah.
U.S. officials and the corporate media linked the use of chlorine gas to the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
In October, Secretary of State John Kerry said although Syria had dismantled its chemical weapons program, the U.S. believes al-Assad has staged attacks with chlorine.
On March 17, it was reported al-Assad carried out a chlorine-gas attack in the northern town of Sarmin, killing six people and injuring dozens.
Like the alleged attacks by ISIS in Iraq, the Syrian attack was unverified.
“Collecting the samples needed to verify the details of chemical-weapons attack is extremely difficult in a warzone,” Noah Gordon wrote for The Atlantic.
The “Syrian regime has already denied responsibility for Monday’s reported chlorine attack, keeping with its pattern of blaming opposition forces.”
In September, a video surfaced allegedly showing mercenary rebels groups fighting against the Syrian government using chemical weapons soon after a chemical attack on August 21 attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.
Experts later cast doubts on chemical attacks on towns of Zamalka and Ein Tarma. Swedish chemical weapons expert Ake Sellstrom, who led a UN inspection in Syria, told Swedish broadcaster SVT that the high number of those killed and wounded sounded “suspicious.”
http://www.infowars.com/director-of-respiratory-protection-system-company-warns-isis-will-launch-chemical-attack-in-londons-tube/
—
UN Security Council Allows Iran a Free Hand in Yemen
March 23, 2015 By Joseph A. Klein
The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on Sunday March 22nd regarding the rapidly deteriorating situation in Yemen. It heard a briefing from Jamal Benomar, the UN Secretary General’s Special Adviser on Yemen, describing Yemen’s descent towards a possible sectarian civil war.
It then issued a presidential statement on behalf of all fifteen members that, in essence, told all parties to the conflict to behave, stop the violence, engage in peaceful political dialogue and obey past Security Council resolutions calling for the same thing. However, once again, the Security Council demonstrated its incapacity to deal truthfully and effectively with a crisis that has potentially far-reaching geopolitical significance.
The Security Council presidential statement ritualistically called on all member states to refrain from external interference in Yemen’s affairs and reaffirmed its readiness to take further measures against any party in case of non-implementation of its prior resolutions on Yemen. However, the Security Council did not call out Iran specifically for its funding, training and arming of its Shiite Houthi allies, whom have continued to occupy government institutions in Yemen’s capital, threatened the duly elected president and his ministers, and expanded militarily into other areas of Yemen outside of the capital.
It is not as if Iran’s disruptive intervention in Yemen to expand its own sphere of influence is a secret. Iranian senior officials openly brag about it.
In January, Iranian Brigadier General Baqir Zada said that the “Houthis victory in Yemen” represented “a historic victory for the Iranian Islamic revolution.”
Also in January, Hojatoleslam (a Shiite clerical rank just below that of ayatollah) Ali Shirazi, representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, said, “Hezbollah was formed in Lebanon as a popular force like Basij (Iran’s militia). Similarly popular forces were also formed in Syria and Iraq, and today we are watching the formation of Ansarollah in Yemen.”
In February, Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, boasted: “We are witnessing the export of the Islamic revolution throughout the region. From Bahrain and Iraq to Syria, Yemen and North Africa.”
The Security Council’s public silence regarding Iran’s admitted active role in destabilizing Yemen as part of fulfilling its hegemonic ambitions is as deafening as it is revealing. At this delicate point in its nuclear negotiations with Iran, the Obama administration and its allies do not want to do anything at the UN Security Council that might upset Iran and cause it to back away from a possible deal.
Consider the fact that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, issued her own statement condemning the Houthis, but that she too left out any mention of Iran. Ambassador Power said that “the Houthis’ actions – taken in close collaboration with former President Ali Abdullah Salih – have consistently undermined Yemen’s transition.” Ambassador Power referred to “a series of violent actions perpetrated by the Houthis since they chose to overrun Sana’a, take over government institutions, and attempt to govern by unilateral decree.” She added that “all parties must refrain from any further unilateral and offensive military actions.”
Unmentioned was the identity of the state party fueling the Houthis’ perpetration of violence – the same terrorist sponsoring state that the Obama administration is feverishly negotiating with to reach a nuclear deal by the end of this month.
Only the Yemeni representative had the guts to call out the elephant in the room. He implored the Security Council to “curb the drums of war” propagated by the promotors of the coup, fuelled by “Iranian ambitions” in Yemen.
Closed consultations among Security Council members followed the public briefing. A senior Western delegate told me that Iran’s involvement in the Yemen conflict did come up during the closed consultations. However, there was evidently no discussion on what steps might be taken to enforce prior Security Council resolutions vis a vis Iran’s role. There are prior Security Council resolutions related to Yemen that could be used, including Resolution 2140 (2014), extended until at least next year. Resolution 2140 had set up a mechanism for identifying and sanctioning individuals and entities responsible for, among other things, “providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen.”
Yet Iran has escaped even the slightest slap on the wrist for its continued shipment of arms to its Houthi allies in Yemen, which is going on as the UN continues to spin its wheels rather than act. According to a March 21, 2015 report by StrategyWorld.com, for example, “An Iranian freighter recently docked at Yemen’s second largest port (al Saleef) and unloaded 185 tons of weapons and military equipment.”
More disturbing is the fact that, aside from the specific resolution regarding Yemen, the Security Council already has a ready-made vehicle to enforce against Iran but is ignoring it. Iran is openly violating a 2007 UN Security Council resolution that imposed an embargo on arms exports from Iran along with other constraints on Iranian arms imports. This and other resolutions, which Iran is seeking to have rescinded as quickly as possible as part of a negotiated nuclear deal, were passed as the foundation for declaring Iran’s nuclear program to be illegal and punishing Iran for its continued intransigence.
Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) stated that “Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel, and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.”
In a statement after the vote on that 2007 resolution, the U.S. representative reminded the world of “Iran’s continued well-known role as one of the world’s leading State sponsors of terrorism.”
The Iranian regime has not changed its stripes. In fact, it has gotten even worse. By its own admission, it is actively expanding its reach in the Middle East and beyond, and it is using more terrorist proxies on the Hezbollah model. Yet the Obama administration, in its attempt to whitewash Iran’s association with terrorism, actually removed Iran from the list of terrorist threats in the most recent Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community report published on February 26, 2015.
The Obama administration is also reportedly considering offering Iran a phased lifting of the UN sanctions as Iran complies with specified milestones. Not that it makes any real difference, given Iran’s flouting of Resolution 1747 and other Security Council resolutions related to its nuclear program, but lifting of the UN sanctions could potentially spill over into relaxing the embargo on Iran’s export of arms. And that would give Iran even more of a sense of international legitimacy in arming its proxies such as the Houthis.
The French, who are participating in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, are not in such a hurry to compromise on the UN sanctions. They want the Iranians to come clean on the past work they have done on nuclear warhead development before UN sanctions can begin being lifted. The Iranians are reportedly refusing to cooperate, as they continue to stonewall UN inspectors whom have been seeking information on Iran’s past military dimensions of their nuclear program. U.S. diplomats are for all intents and purposes running interference for Iran, trying to convince France not to worry so much about any past Iranian work on nuclear warhead development right now. In their zeal for a deal, Obama’s negotiators are willing to overlook any evidence of Iranian deception and stonewalling.
The UN Security Council’s inaction against Iran regarding its blatant arming, training and funding of the Houthis in Yemen, in violation of a prior Security Council resolution, is no accident. It is in keeping with the Obama administration’s own reluctance to offend Iran on any issue that might get in the way of completing a nuclear deal with the pre-eminent global state sponsor of jihadist terrorism.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70648
—
The Obama Administration Is Now Having The US Military Fight Side By Side With Iranian Soldiers And Jihadist Shiite Militias (THIS WILL LEAD TO A REVIVAL OF THE ANTICHRIST EMPIRE)
March 24, 2015 By Theodore Shoebat
The Obama administration is now having the US military work side by side with Iranian soldiers and Shiite militias. This is only going to help Iran take control of Iraq, fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel of the Bear (Persia) biting onto the three ribs (Iraq). Thus, America right now is helping revive the Antichrist empire. I did a whole video on this:
According to one report:
The United States is taking part in joint military operations with Iran, admitting it is providing aerial surveillance over the current battle for Tikrit.
The assault on Isil-held Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town in Iraq, has stalled in recent days after initial success.
Troops loyal to the Baghdad government, along with Iran-backed Shia militia and some Sunni tribesmen, have surrounded Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant fighters in Saddam’s old palace complex and one other part of the city, but have been unable to make further progress.
The attack has been openly master-minded by an Iranian general, Qassem Suleimani, head of the internationally-focused Al Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard, who has been photographed on the front lines.
An official from the US-led coalition operating air strikes against Isil in Iraq and Syria confirmed to the Reuters news agency that it was now providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance from the air to support the attack.
The United States is also said to be awaiting an imminent formal request for the coalition to join in military operations directly from the air, which it would be likely to grant.
…
The sight of American jets effectively acting as an air force for Iranian regional interests will further alarm critics at home and in the Arab Sunni world already looking nervously at a possible rapprochement between the two old foes after a possible deal on Tehran’s nuclear programme.
Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, estimated that of the forces attacking Tikrit, 18,000 were Shia militiamen, compared to just 3,000 members of the regular army, and 1,000 Sunni fighters.
When ISIS invaded much of Iraq and unleashed their reign of terror over Christians, Shiites and Yazidis, the western world was terrified at such violence. Beheadings, crucifixions, horrific immolations, all of this scared and disturbed.
Now Iranian Shiite militias are invading Iraq and explosively vanquishing ISIS and retaking the lands that they conquered. But, before we begin to praise these Shiites as heroes, let us remind ourselves that the rebels in revolutionary France were far more brutal than the monarchy everybody wanted to topple. ISIS is brutal — yes — but the Iranians will be far more worse. And Obama is backing them up.
General Petraeus, who was fired by the Obama Administration, has already given this warning, that the Iranians are a greater threat than ISIS:
We need to recognize that the #1 long term threat to Iraq’s equilibrium — and the broader regional balance — is not the Islamic State, which I think is on the path to being defeated in Iraq and pushed out of its Iraqi sanctuary… The most significant long term threat is that posed by the Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
…If Daesh is driven from Iraq and the consequence is that Iranian-backed militias emerge as the most powerful force in the country — eclipsing the Iraqi Security Forces, much as Hezbollah does in Lebanon — that would be a very harmful outcome for Iraqi stability and sovereignty, not to mention our own national interests in the region
more at…
http://shoebat.com/2015/03/24/the-obama-administration-is-now-having-the-us-military-fight-side-by-side-with-iranian-soldiers-and-jihadist-shiite-militias-this-will-lead-to-a-revival-of-the-antichrist-empire/
—
Is Islam a Threat to the West? David Wood vs. Shadid Lewis
—-
Related
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/24/white-house-on-ayatollahs-death-to-america-intended-for-domestic-political-audience/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/24/report-isis-recruits-more-than-400-children/
http://shoebat.com/2015/03/24/antichrist-turkey-is-developing-its-own-long-range-missiles-and-space-technology-claiming-it-will-supersede-the-united-states/
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, Ebola, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House