Everyone remembers the terror attacks in New York City, Madrid, London, Mumbai, Paris, Brussels, Nice (and lots more).
If you feel that they were possible because too many governments had been mesmerized by politically correct fantasies
and had pursued a submissive policy toward terrorist organizations, you are not alone.
Jihad Al-Kuffar is on the same wavelength.
Thank you very much for visiting this BLOG. We hope you will be interested in our comments and will share your opinion with us.
If you wish to submit your remarks, please send a message to the address
Do not forget to specify which post you refer to.
THE RAKHINE AFFAIR [Post # 1709]
September 19, 2017
One of the most iconic Nobel laureates, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under attack for quite a time because of the Rohingya crisis. In consequence of recent events, someone openly claims that she did not deserve that honor. However, no matter the reasons behind today's systematic attacks, it should be acknowledged that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was granted the Nobel Prize for Peace in view of long years and continuous, indisputable efforts devoted to the fight against oppression. And that fight was really successful, since Myanmar has changed a lot during the last decade.
To put it straight, there is quite a difference beween Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (who won the Nobel Prize thanks to what she did) and several Nobel laureates who got that prize because of what other people had done or were doing. Just to give a few examples, I will mention Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and Malala Yousafzai. I might oversimplify much more intriguing situations, but I have a feeling that Jimmy Carter was essentially chosen with the aim of launching an attack on the preventive war that the Bush Administration was going to wage against Saddam Hussein (meanwhile, no one cares that he gave the green light to the establishment of an oppressive theocratic regime in Iran that immediately led to a perpetual state of war between Shia and Sunni Muslims). As for Barack Obama, I think he was rewarded because the the majority of the Americans had not voted for a Republican candidate—and no one seems to regret that President Obama bombed Libya without any plan for the post-Gaddafi era and gave a significant contribution to the civil war in Syria, without succeeding in toppling Bashar al-Assad (the alleged target of the US Admistration at that time). Finally, Malala Yousafzai became a Nobel laureate because she was victim of criminals who had been allowed to take control of tribal areas in Pakistan with the support of huge raging crowds of fanatics that live in that country.
Well, let's go back to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Rohingya affair. No doubt, thousands of innocent civilians are suffering. Nonetheless, I am not so sure that the Myanmar authorities should be unconditionally blamed—as well as I do not think that the Russian authorities should be unconditionally blamed for what they did in Chechnya. More specifically, I do not know if the words ethnic cleansing are used properly by some UN bureaucrats and other gurus who keep talking about Myanmar, but... sure enough, the military operations of the Russians in Chechnya caused far worse collateral damage and definitely took place without international observers or news networks. No one was free to move around and give evidence of mass graves.
JUST A SENSE OF HUMOR? WHY? [Post # 1707]
July 14, 2017
As reported by the media, Pope Francis has recently posted a No whining sign on the door of his residence. Apparently, the sign was a gift from a psychologist. Written in Italian, it was meant to be a lesson for life: "Violators are subject to a syndrome of always feeling like a victim and the consequent reduction of your sense of humor and capacity to solve problems." The sign also explained that "the penalty is doubled if the violation takes place in the presence of children."
What's the moral of the story? "To get the best out of yourself, concentrate on your potential and not on your limitations. Stop complaining and take steps to improve your life." As pointed out by the Pope himself on a previous occasion, he likes people who do not complain all the time: "A sense of humor is a gift I ask for every day."
The whole thing looks nice, but I doubt it is really appropriate to talk just about A SENSE OF HUMOR. In my opinion, we should take that warning more seriously. Much more seriously.
WHAT ABOUT MAMMOTHS? BLAME TRUMP! [Post # 1706]
June 3, 2017
It is quite obvious that the world is living an age of continuous terror attacks, from London to Kabul, from Istanbul to Manila. Nonetheless, just a few people would like to wage a serious war on terror organizations, which are systematically killing Planet Earth by murdering people and destroying its cultural heritage (see, e.g., Palmyra). Similarly, just a few people believe that the White House should develop a strong alliance with Russia (which could provide valuable help in fighting that war). There are different interests: the vast majority of world leaders, the most politically-correct citizens and their friendly news outlets continue to present Donald Trump as major threat to the planet. An example is given by the terrifying headline in the picture above
The message is really scaring... and I suddenly had a thought I'd never had before: what about mammoths?, or dinosaurs?, or pterodactyls?, or the Neanderthal Man? The most natural answer was obvious: blame Trump! No matter that climate changes are relatively frequent and hardly related to Trump's policies! Forget the Great Lakes! Pretend to ignore that they began to form at the end of the last glacial age, some 14,000 years ago! Don't you dare to say that ice melting was much worse and much more impressive at that time than it is today!
Well, I probably went a little bit too far. In actual fact, I must acknowledge that no scientist has ever blamed Trump for killing mammoths or dinosaurs. Nonetheless, if we really believe that the point of view of certain scientists is absolute truth, we often come to funny conclusions. For instance, this happens in the case of the deep analysis of an expert in the fields of "climate change and social justice", who recently wrote at least a couple of articles about the current climate drama. The first one starts with the following optimistic statement: "Donald Trump's decision on Thursday to abandon the Paris Agreement is apocalyptic" [cf. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/sutter-paris-trump-ignore-facts/index.html]; as for the second one, it is optimistically titled "We have 20 years - at the very most - to prevent mass extinction [cf. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/opinions/sutter-wwf-sixth-extinction/]. And here comes the trouble...
UNCONDITIONALLY WELCOME? [Post # 1702]
February 1, 2017
Places like NYC and Philly are thousands of miles away from Berlin, Germany, and Nice, France. However, it may well be that the anti-Trump protesters in New York City, Philadelphia and other US towns have heard of a terrorist attack in Berlin that occurred on December 19, 2016. The perpetrator was a gentleman from Tunisia, who had been arrested a few times and condemned in absentia in his homeland. In 2011, he arrived in the unwalled Island of Lampedusa, Italy. Later, he was held in an Italian jail and graciously allowed to go free in 2015 because the Tunisian authorities (very wisely) refused to get him back. Then, this jolly good fellow moved to Germany (from where, again, it was impossible to send him to Tunisia) and, in full agreement with the socially advanced European regulations, he could fly around as free as a bird.
Similarly, even the Clinton supporters who live in New York and Philadelphia might have knowledge of the terrorist attack in Nice (July 14, 2016). Interestingly enough, also the gentleman who killed almost a hundred people in Nice was a Tunisian national, but with a French residency permit.
Although I am fully aware that any comment about the potential threat posed by asylum seekers or alleged asylum seekers is not in accordance with any politically correct agenda, I firmly believe that some caution should be exercised and I fully agree with the metaphor used by Donald Trump Jr some time ago: "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?" And let me say it clearly: I totally reject the politically correct idea that immigrants should not be compared to Skittles. After all, it's just a metaphor! More importantly, if Donald Trump Jr is to be chastised for his metaphor, we should tear the pages of the Gospels, in which human beings are compared to sheep and, even worse, God is downgraded to a shepherd! Actually, I don't think that the progressive world would be happy if refugees were labeled as sheep—therefore, if the progressive establishment does not accept metaphors, it should definitely condemn the Gospels!
That said, it's a pity that the concept of conditional terrorist attack does not exist. Indeed, it would be fair if the non-populist citizens and politicians were allowed to take their responsibility—it would be fair if terrorist attacks like the ones that took place in New York or Boston or Paris or London or Madrid or Istanbul or Mumbai or many more cities only hit people who would not mind taking a handful of potentially lethal skittles...
Next, there's the problem of the wall.
A TRIBUTE TO FORMER US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA [Post # 1701]
January 20, 2017
When foreign policy comes into play, I think it is fair to acknowledge (first of all) that former US President Barack Obama gave the green light for the raid that put an end to the bin-Laden era. It was May 1st, 2011.
Next, in my opinion, there were two more days that brought tremendous prestige to the White House during the last eight years: January 11, 2015 and March 29, 2015. I am sure that some will ask: "What the hell did happen back then?" It happened that statesmen like François Hollande and Abu Mazen marched together after the Charlie Hebdo attack (Paris March) and the Bardo massacre (Tunis March). Yet, despite the enthusiastic participation of many heads of state, Barack Obama did not show up. He had the merit to snub ridiculous events, which could not harm any terrorist organization in any way and could only serve to give the impression that rogue states have never existed. In other words, those parades were nothing but a trick to suggest that the most fanatic criminals essentially belong to isolated groups—with no connections to any government, any religious movement, any legacy left by Yasser Arafat (a major pioneer in the terrorism business).
They were three magic moments, indeed... but what about the remaining 2,919 days?
BIN LADEN, PART II: THE REVENGE [Post # P1105B]
May 15, 2011
A couple of days ago, on May 13, we learned from the media that about eighty people (mostly military recruits) had been killed in the District of Charsadda, Pakistan, in a twin suicide attack. As reported, e.g., by CNN, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban was quick to explain the reason for the attack: "Osama was our great leader and the killers of Osama will have to pay its price"
[cf. article dated May 13, 2011, posted on the web page
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/12/pakistan.explosions/index.html, still available in March 2013―the above picture is a detail of a photograph posted on the same web page].
THE MANHUNT IS OVER [Post # P1105A]
May 2, 2011
The message we received appears to be unambiguous.
"Justice has been done," President Barack Obama announced on May 1, 2011.
"America has sent an unmistakable message. No matter how long it takes, justice will be done," echoed former President George W. Bush.
In the wake of these statements, I would like to make some comments about that word, justice, which also recurs frequently in Jihad Al-Kuffar. In a sense, it is the slogan of the alleged writer, a radical militant, who often claims that he is fighting "for the sake of justice"—and is proud of killing innocent people in the name of his justice.
So, when I heard the news about the death of Osama bin-Laden, I immediately thought about the last chapter of the book.
It is a short chapter. The scene is in the Province of Paktia, Afghanistan. It is March 6, 2002. The militant has just mentioned a "surprise move": the Taliban have abandoned Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul and Kandahar, but (in his opinion) there is nothing to worry about. He feels sure that everything is under control: the Taliban have made a strategic retreat and their leaders "are preparing to emerge from the Tora Bora caves and kick the invaders out of the emirate."
While dreaming of an imminent victory, the militant and his fellow fighters are under attack. Yet, he feels confident. He continues to make notes on his diary, even though a helicopter is not far away. Eventually, he dies—and his death somehow represents the moral of the story. As happened in the case of World War II, true justice will prevail sooner or later. It may take a long time. Perhaps ten years. Or even more. But it will prevail.
THE LION AND THE GAZELLE [Post # P1009]
September 19, 2010
There is no need to make philosophical speculations about the role of specific geographical areas, specific degraded slums and specific turbulent regions. The truth of the matter is evident: even though most of the leading figures of terrorist organizations are educated people (sometimes classified as wealthy people as well), no one can deny that manpower for indiscriminate killings is generally available where living conditions are very harsh.
Therefore, both humanitarian objectives and security concerns suggest that underdevelopment is a dangerous enemy—not only the worst nightmare of poor nations, but also a direct threat to the West. It is a major challenge and a sustainable solution is to be found.
Much has been done and much has been criticized. Nonetheless, when we focus on terrorist activities, we realize that much of the problem is still there. And today, after so many years of unsatisfactory results, I'll make a shy attempt to say something different from the mainstream. Of course, I do know that my voice will hardly be heard. I am also aware that it is difficult to discuss controversial topics, but I believe that an obstacle should never be a reason to ignore a problem. When ethical and practical issues are on the table, every person is within his rights to express his opinion—whatever opinion, even in the presence of dramatic realities.
Feel free to use the material in this site. We just ask you to give credit to the source.