Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Facebook REMOVES video linking Islam and terror

Facebook has removed a video posted by a prominent Jewish community member after he claimed there is a clear connection between terrorism and Islam.

Outspoken Israeli army veteran Avi Yemini posted a live video after the London terror attacks which received almost four thousand likes.

In the video he claimed there is an obvious link between terrorism, and those who cannot see it are 'stupid'.

Mr Yemini told Daily Mail Australia the post was removed by Facebook for violating community standards.

He has since posted a response to Facebook in which he says 'lefties' pulled down the live video, and claims Muslims can say what they want.

'The funny thing is if I was an Islamist, there would be no problem with anything I say,' he says in the video posted on Monday. 'In fact I could say I'm gonna behead someone now ... It's a bloody disgrace.

'I actually didn't say anything too controversial.'

Mr Yemini also reveals in the video a number of his separate accounts have also been shutdown by Facebook.

'Something seems a little bit off here ... I'm very careful about choosing my words in a way that it doesn't go against their terms and conditions,' he says.

He then implores people to follow his Facebook page to send a powerful message about censorship to the 'leftist' social media giant.

'I want to get a few thousand followers tonight just to show these lefties that when you try to silence us, when you try to shut us up, we only get louder,' he says.


Web giant won't remove vile Muslim rants inciting terror

Google has refused to remove vile YouTube rants by the hate preachers who inspired the London Bridge killers.

The Mail yesterday found a series of tirades by Ahmad Musa Jibril and Abu Haleema that were easily accessible on the video sharing site.

They used the Google-owned video platform to spread the warped messages which helped turn 27-year-old Khuram Butt into a fanatic bent on mass slaughter.

In the videos found by the Mail, they told followers to make ‘enemies’ out of all kuffar [non-believers], and instructed Islamists not to grieve for terror victims.

They also branded moderate Muslims as ‘malignant tumours’ in the Islamic community, and denounced the London Mayor Sadiq Khan – a Muslim – as kuffar.

According to a friend of Butt, he was obsessed with Jibril, and became radicalised after watching YouTube videos of the preacher.

He was also an associate of Haleema, appearing alongside him in last year’s Channel 4 documentary, the Jihadis Next Door.

The hate preacher’s videos have been watched more than a million times, and won warped comments of approval from viewers, one of whom wrote: ‘Kuffar must [and] will be eliminated’.

But Google has refused to remove them, insisting they did not break its own rules. Last night, politicians and terror experts accused the US technology giant of ‘colluding’ with hate preachers.

Yvette Cooper, the Labour candidate for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and former shadow home secretary, said: ‘It is sickening that extremist, terrorist material which intends to radicalise people so that they carry out heinous attacks like the one we saw on London Bridge is still easily available on YouTube.

‘Google are aiding and abetting terrorists by leaving this vile stuff online. This platform is being used to feed warped ideologies that support deathly attacks.’

Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, said there was ‘no question at all’ that the material should be removed.

‘[The technology companies] bear clear moral responsibility for the harm that is done. They collude in the Islamist incitement.

‘GCHQ could disrupt these channels of communication. Let the US companies sue the UK Government; there’s no English jury that would find for the Americans.’

Last night, a YouTube spokesman said that it wanted to work with the Government.

‘We take our role in combatting the spread of extremist material very seriously,’ the spokesman said. ‘YouTube has clear policies prohibiting terrorist recruitment and content intending to incite violence, and we act quickly to remove videos violating these. We also terminate accounts run by terrorist organisations or those that repeatedly violate our policies.’

However, its words will fall flat in light of the grotesque videos by Jibril and Haleema still circulating on YouTube. Jibril, a Palestinian-American cleric, denounced religious tolerance and condemned Muslims who feel sympathy for victims of terror attacks.

In one video, watched more than 41,000 times, Jibril tells his followers: ‘[There are] malignant tumours within this umma [Muslim community] crying for the causes of others. The least worst Muslim dying anywhere in the world is more worthy of mourning and attention than the best kaffir.’

Haleema said in a video posted on the day of the 2016 Brussels attack: ‘Don’t try and be like the kuffar [non-believer]. Do not grieve over them.’

He also taunted non-Muslims in a video posted in January 2016, and watched more than 5,000 times. ‘We’re not going to stop calling for the domination of Islam.’

Heleema and Jibril’s messages are also spreading on Facebook and Twitter. Yesterday, the Mail also found many links promoting them on the social networks. One Twitter account set up to spread Jibril’s message offers followers a free DVD. He also has a Facebook page with links to his sermons.

Facebook and Twitter accounts under Haleema’s name were also last night active, though it is not clear whether they are genuine. Twitter declined to comment on ‘privacy’ grounds.

Most of Haleema’s YouTube videos were posted before he appeared in the Channel 4 documentary in January 2016. In 2015, he was accused of radicalising a schoolboy who was convicted over a plot to behead police during an Anzac Day parade in Australia.

He was arrested on suspicion of encouraging terrorism in 2015. He does not appear to have posted to YouTube since June 2016. His whereabouts are unknown.

    The security services face difficult questions because 27-year-old Muslim ringleader, Khuram Butt, known to friends as 'Abz', appeared in a Channel 4 documentary last year about British jihadists Killer who was filmed in Regent's Park with an ISIS flag...


'Stop slapping him and belittling him': Brutal post details the harmful ways in which teenage girls abuse boyfriends, insisiting they get away with the awful behavior because they are female

A social media post is raising the alarm about the harmful ways in which girls and women can abuse their boyfriends.

The message, titled 'Dear teen girls', received renewed attention on Monday and has circulated on Tumblr. It lists more than 15 abusive behaviors, such as 'threatening to break up with him if he doesn’t do what you want' and 'yelling at him in front of his friends', and urges female partners to stop resorting to them.

Social media users have reblogged the post and shared their own stories of abuse. One of them recounted the heartbreaking tale of a man who was being hit by his ex-girlfriend, but struggled to get help from authorities after cops laughed at him.

'Stop abusing your boyfriends,' the message urges, 'and yes what you are doing is abuse.'

Among the listed abusive behaviors, some refer to the physical kind of abuse, such as 'hitting or slapping him when he does or says something you don’t like' and 'physically attacking him whenever you are mad'.

Another refers to sexual violence, and warns against 'forcing him to have sex despite that fact that he said he didn’t want to'.

Others describe psychological abuse and humiliation, and asks female partners to refrain from 'yelling at him in front of his friends', 'telling him he doesn’t have a choice when it comes to decisions that involve both of you', and 'threatening to break up with him if he doesn’t do what you want'.

The post also urges girls to stop 'belittling him and pointing out all his flaws' and 'invading his privacy by going through his phone'.

Along with the list, the author of the original message pointed out how important it is to raise awareness about male victims of abuse. One in four men in the US have experienced physical violence, rape or stalking at the hand of their partners in their lifetime according to the CDC.

'Boys: If your girlfriend does anything on this list leave her. It is abuse and you deserve better,' the author wrote. 'Girls: if you find yourself doing anything on this list to your boyfriend you need to knock it off because you are being abusive.'

The post resonated with thousands of other social media users, who in turned shared the list.

One of them pointed out that domestic abuse isn't found only in heterosexual relationships. 'Can I just add that I've seen young queer girls do this to their girlfriends,' the person wrote. 'Girls can be abusers and you are right to leave.'

Someone added their own list of abusive behaviors, such as 'sending his number to strangers to see if he's loyal or not' and being rude or mean to him in front of others'.

Another person recounted knowing a young man who got both of his legs broken because he 'annoyed' his girlfriend.

'Another young lady started to hit her ex-boyfriend because he wouldn’t take her back because of the abuse,' the poster added. 'He called the cops on her and they literally started laughing at him because she was very petite in comparison to him. Anyone can be abusive and I wish more people understood that.'


Santa Fe's rejection of soda tax a win for public health

Record numbers of voters turned out on May 2 to say no to a soda tax in Santa Fe, New Mexico. By proposing a two-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary soft drinks, policymakers meant to encourage healthier consumption choices. What soda tax advocates don't realize, however, is that a soda tax might actually encourage worse eating and drinking habits.

Santa Fe's decisive defeat of the soda tax (11,533 no votes versus 8,382 votes in favor) is a win for public health even if it seems like a loss at first glance. It’s also true, though, that governments around the world could do more to improve their citizens’ health.

The tax seems brilliant in its straightforward logic. People buy less of a good when its price goes up, and so higher after-tax soda prices should lead individuals to consume less sugary soft drinks, thereby avoiding the scourges of obesity, Type II diabetes and tooth decay, or at least that is what the supporters claim. But simple thinking isn't enough. Individuals react in more ways than politicians can anticipate and are ingenious when it comes to finding ways around obstacles between them and their favorite vices.

Philadelphia's experience with a 1.5-cent-per-ounce soda tax demonstrates how easy it is to find ways around a tax confined to one city. It took retailers located outside Philadelphia only a few days before they advertised their locations to pull in soft drink shoppers. Guides to soda sellers just outside the bounds of the taxing jurisdiction quickly emerged on social media.

Even when soda taxes increase prices, as Econ 101 teaches, it doesn't mean that healthier options will be chosen instead. Research shows that people substitute salty and fatty foods when faced with a half-cent-per-ounce soda tax. Moreover, the effect of the tax on obesity is vanishingly small: the same researchers concluded that the tax likely would cause less than a two-pound weight loss in low-income individuals over the next decade.

Less than a two-pound weight loss over ten years is a far cry from the health benefits promised by the soda tax's advocates, but the tax's effects don't stop there. People naturally choose healthier options and are more likely to exercise as their incomes rise. So a regressive soda tax is a bad way to promote health because it reduces the disposable incomes of those it is meant to help. In fact, economic research shows that “sin taxes” like those proposed for soda may even exacerbate income inequality.

If soda taxes boosted economic growth, then maybe their defenders could claim they will help individuals make healthier choices. But the number of reasons to think soda taxes hurt the economies of cities that enacted them is growing. Take the case of Philadelphia again. Only two months after implementation of Philadelphia's 1.5-cent-per-ounce tax, Philly’s supermarkets and soda distributors reported 30 to 50 percent drops in beverage sales and announced layoffs — likely because of cross-border shopping. We can only hope that the Philadelphians who lost their jobs found new employment in nearby towns.

Soda sales dropped by ten percent in Berkeley, Calif., in the months following the enactment of a one-cent-per-ounce tax there, but they rose by seven percent just beyond the city limits.

The lost jobs and the sugary, fatty and carbohydrate-laden foods individuals consume when soda prices rise supposedly are “unintended consequences” of the seemingly simple soda tax. The evidence is accumulating, however, that such consequences are foreseeable and likely create negative health effects of the same magnitudes as the ones policymakers are attempting to prevent.

The failure of soda taxes to promote healthy choices doesn't mean that governments are incapable of helping people live healthier lives — it's just that the right path to that goal isn't through social engineering.

Instead of bludgeoning the already poor with regressive taxes, policymakers should try to get out of their way and allow them to improve their own lives. Easing occupational licensing restrictions and clearing out the tangled web of regulations that impede small-business startups and innovation are great places to start.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.


No comments: