Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
December 1, 2015
The Washington Post has kicked it up a notch, as they are fond of doing.
They are now claiming that Syria is literally a new Holocaust, and that it is thus the responsibility of the West to both invade the country and to accept refugees from the country they are invading.
A month ago, I visited the Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps in Poland. I had read many memoirs by survivors and various accounts by historians, but being physically present in the gas chambers, dungeon cells, and barracks where more than a million people were murdered produced in me a visceral repugnance — a sensation that now recurs when I read about the daily atrocities perpetrated by members of the Islamic State.
EDITOR’S NOTE: ISIS HAS BEEN CAUGHT MAKING LAMPSHADES OUT OF SYRIA SKIN.
We must stop the suffering.
We now rightly think it shameful that evidence about the camps was ignored, that efforts to liberate them were not made earlier, and that Jewish refugees were turned away from the US, Britain, and other countries. If camps such as Auschwitz and Birkenau were operating today, most of us would think it inconceivable that it could be morally permissible to stand by and allow them to continue. Yet what occurred in these camps — enslavement, efforts to exterminate certain groups, execution of homosexuals, and so on — is being replicated at this moment in the areas controlled by the Islamic State. These monstrous crimes have been occurring for more than a year while we have stood by and allowed them to continue. It is shameful that the aim of defeating the Islamic State has become an urgent priority in the West only after we ourselves have come to feel threatened.
Everything that happens anywhere in the world is your problem, White Man.
The recent airstrikes aimed at destroying the Islamic State’s sources of revenue are appropriate and should continue, provided they can be carried out without significant harm to innocent bystanders. But airstrikes against targets within the cities that the Islamic State controls will almost inevitably cause disproportionate harm to innocents. The West must not adopt the tactics of Assad. Ground forces capable of discriminating between Islamic State militants and civilians will almost certainly be necessary to dislodge the militants from the cities they control. And expelling them is essential, as the caliphate cannot exist in the eyes of its devotees in the absence of territorial control.
It also couldn’t exist without all this money and weaponry being poured into it.
And yet the US continues to send weapons to Syria, knowing that they eventually “fall into the hands” of ISIS, while claiming this is accidental. Even if it is accidental – which seems unlikely – it is something which would be easy to stop from happening. You would just stop sending weapons to Syrian “rebels.”
We could also maybe try to investigate who is buying this oil from ISIS.
Someone is doing the buying, Don.
Russia says it’s Turkey, and they are producing intelligence to prove it. Meanwhile, the EU is giving Turkey billions of dollars, and refusing to investigate why they are imprisoning reporters for releasing information on arms supplies to ISIS, jailing military officials for stopping arms supplies from reaching ISIS.
If you are interested in stopping ISIS, you might also consider not attacking Assad, who (along with his allies) is the only person fighting ISIS.
Yet to send Western soldiers into combat against the militants would be perceived by Islamic State members and potential recruits as confirmation of prophesies in which they believe — fantasies involving the reappearance of Crusaders in their Holy Land. For this reason and others, it is important that the forces that purge the cities and towns should consist predominantly of soldiers indigenous to the region: Shiites, Kurds and, one hopes, Sunnis who detest the barbarism of their co-religionists in the Islamic State
Shiites like Assad, Hezbollah and Iran? The ones who are already doing exactly what you just said, but who you pay terrorists to fight against?
Who’s kidding who here, guy?
This is one of many reasons why the resistance in the West, and most disgracefully in the U.S., which assisted in the creation of the Islamic State through its misbegotten war in Iraq, to providing asylum for refugees from Syria and Iraq is so profoundly wrong.It is probably true that a tiny fraction of the refugees are Islamic State infiltrators. But they will add only marginally to home-grown jihadists in the West who will become increasingly numerous until the Caliphate is destroyed by depriving it of territory. To turn away the principal victims of the Islamic State is not only inhumane but also self-defeating; for who are more likely to be our reliable allies in the morally necessary fight against the Islamic State than those whom it has driven from their homes and homeland?
Wow, an admission there will be terrorists brought in, followed by “it doesn’t really matter because there are other terrorists also.”
Seems like a better solution than bringing in more Moslems might be to eject the ones already here.
Abstract moralizing makes very little sense when you are getting slaughtered on your own streets. Things are tough all over. It’s too bad Syria is in a war, I guess, but it is only our problem so much as we are funding terrorists. If we stop funding terrorists, it seems that our responsibility to Syria will be finished. Then we can let Putin deal with it.
The idea of calling for a war with a country and at the same time calling for refugees to be taken in from that war is beyond insane. This is not even close to adult discourse.
Imagine if during World War II, millions of fighting age Germans were marching into Britain.
Would people have been cool with that?
I mean, I would have been cool with that, but I’m a Nazi who wishes Germany would have won the war.
