1. Genuine Neo-Nazi group calling themselves, Soldiers of Odin, have begun patrols in Finland.
(Once again, the consequence of not listening to genuine liberals about islam and its consequences as well as the destruction of rational nationalism will result in people resorting to anything available to get back a sense of justice and security. Please read the page written in 2008 called, ‘The Agenda and Views of this Site)
2. Australia: Deep in prayer as protesters hurl abuse: Muslims pray at Parramatta Mosque after being escorted by police past anti-Islam protesters outside
Muslim worshippers going to pray at Parramatta Mosque were escorted by police past anti-Islam demonstrators staging a protest outside on Friday evening.
The anti-Islam group were met by another group of pro-multicultural protesters but all were outnumbered by police.
Those attending the prayer meeting arrived by five or six at a time, with some escorted to the door of the Marsden Street Mosque by police as anti-Islam protesters shouted ‘Islam has to go’ and ‘terrorist scum off our streets’.
Parramatta Mosque leader Neil El-Kadomi thanked police for their work, after the protest expected to attract hundreds only drew about 20 protesters from extreme right-wing group Party of Freedom.
3. Obama Administration Ends Pentagon Program to Train Syrian Rebels
(Can’t see that making any difference whatsoever except saving the US taxpayer a few hundred billion)
LONDON — The Obama administration has ended the Pentagon’s $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels, administration officials said on Friday, in an acknowledgment that the beleaguered program had failed to produce any kind of ground combat forces capable of taking on the Islamic State in Syria.
Pentagon officials announced the end of the program on Friday, as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter left London after meetings with his British counterpart, Michael Fallon, about the continuing wars in Syria and Iraq.
4. Putin’s Syrian bombing ‘will spark jihad against Moscow’: Qatar source –
(Like everywhere else in the world, the Russians would have a hard time telling the difference between a jihad against Moscow Vs. the existing constant attacks and attempted attacks against Moscow by muslims for reasons of jihad that have been going on for quite a while. Beslan? Just asking)
5. Hundreds of muslims do a show-prayer for (or against?) ‘climate change at Westminster Abbey
6. Russians publish new footage of attacks on Islamic State assets
7. Germany attempts to reclaim a semblance of reason by deporting Albanian and East Euro economic migrants leaving a rich concentration of Arab muslims to overwhelm the system with violence and demands. (This video is surprisingly informative. Worth watching past the classic leftist party line at the start)
8. Saudi chops off hand of slave from India for failing to respond appropriately for being treated like a slave.
9. Daily Mail article claims Putin has created the circumstances by which the Islamic State can take Aleppo due to withdrawal of other allied anti IS forces.
(It might help to think past the next 90 minutes. Some cool GoPro footage of Russian jets dropping ordnance however)
10. Al Jazeera piece explaining that the new US policy allowing people to pay ransom to the Islamic State is a bad idea. For once, it is difficult to disagree with Al Jazeera. However the original no-pay policy needs to be coupled with a highly punitive US response to kidnappings.
Thank you Buck, M., Wrath of Khan, Yucki and all who commented and sent in links and there are far more of them that deserve attention. Post 3 coming soon.
#2 SYDNEY PARRAMATTA MOSQUE A heavy police presence keeps two opposing protests apart
9 – I can see how this could happen, Russia is willing to let ISIS take the city if they can destroy other groups that oppose Assad, after all they can retake the city later.
10 – Never pay ransom for hostages, but never leave the kidnappers alive if it is at all possible. Send in Delta and pray they can rescue the hostage while they are killing the kidnappers.
They call it the Hannibal Directive:
When an IDF soldier is captured, the main mission becomes ending the kidnapping – even if that means injury to Israeli soldiers, including the one captured.
Commanders take whatever action necessary to prevent Israel from having to negotiate with captors, including endangering the life of a captured soldier, to foil the capture.
Very delicate subject, especially in Israeli – everybody’s a rabbi and a general – NOT. This article, for example:
Does Jewish law allow killing a captured IDF soldier?
Since it became public in 2003, the so-called “Hannibal Directive” has engendered much controversy, even as it continues to be employed, including in the 2014 Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, following the capture of Lt. Hadar Goldin.
According to this directive, soldiers are ordered to do everything to prevent the successful capturing of a kidnapped soldier, even if such measures endanger the soldier himself.
Developed in 1996 following the release of terrorists to return the corpses of two soldiers, the protocol was designed to prevent the torment of captivity as well as the emotional debate regarding the extent to which the government must go to “bring home its boys.”
Some versions of the directive went so far as to declare, “Better a dead soldier than a captured soldier.” Accordingly, one might even fire directly on the soldier, if no other means could prevent him from being captured alive. Alternatively, threatened soldiers might be expected to drop a grenade and kill themselves and their potential captors.
While this variation of the directive was widely disseminated, it was rejected in 2011 by then-IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz, who clarified that the Hannibal directive did not allow directly targeting the hostage. It does allow, however, taking certain risks, such as aiming at the tires of the getaway car or ordering distant snipers to fire on the terrorists, even as this might unintentionally kill the hostage.
”aiming at the tires” - Benny doesn’t want to scare the kids, rather change the subject.
Prof. Asa Kasher, a major contributor to the IDF’s code of ethics and opponent of directly targeting soldiers, recently revealed that the incorrect implementation of the directive in 2014 led to the death of a soldier, leading to renewed scrutiny of its morality.
The Sages asserted that the Bible prohibits suicide within the seven Noahide laws.
Yet in the midst of a losing battle with the Philistines, King Saul fell on his sword rather than be taken captive. Similar choices were made throughout Jewish history, including at Masada and during the Crusades.
As did undercover operatives whose cover was blown in enemy countries.
Some commentators asserted that Saul erred by taking his own life.?Others,?however, believed that suicide is not prohibited under such circumstances. Rabbi David Kimhi contended that since his death was inevitable (and prophesied by Samuel), it was preferable for him to prevent the national shame of being killed by our enemies.
Rabbi Shlomo Luria went further to argue that Saul committed suicide to prevent many soldiers from dying while trying to free him.
Based on these sources, Rabbi Shlomo Goren argued that captured soldiers may commit suicide rather than submit to captivity, especially if they might be tortured to reveal information that could endanger other soldiers or the home front.
This seems to be the logical conclusion of a well-known talmudic passage in which a convoy of Jewish travelers is attacked by gentile marauders and ordered to hand over one Jew or face the annihilation of the entire party. The Talmud rules that all should be killed rather than deliver a Jew to his death. A Jew should not actively cause the death of another, even if this act of omission might endanger others.
As opposed to the Judenraat or Kapo (think George Soros).
That said, Jewish law does permit army maneuvers or operations that might endanger our soldiers, be it the captive or those coming to save him. As Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli has noted, the mitzva of waging war inherently calls upon soldiers to risk their own lives while allowing the government to endanger them for the sake of the greater good.
As such, a Hannibal directive that takes on risks of unintended harm remains permissible to prevent the national angst caused by the capture of soldiers.
Given the profound ethical dilemmas created by the Hannibal Directive, however, it pays to remember that the sum of the national trauma caused by the capture of soldiers is self-inflicted.