Muslims claim to be indigenous Australians

	Liza Rosen ⁦‪@LizaRosen0000‬⁩ Muslim influencer explains that just like Israel, Australia is about to be returned to its original native indigenous Muslim people who existed before humanity came to existence. pic.x.com/TBa7mhNOmn   12/3/2026, 5:10 am

My thought: 

Siena Park to Central Hong Kong

Hotel Auberge, North Plaza, Discovery Bay, at left
Central Hong Kong, in the middle far distance

And... what's with the Battle of Tours?

Following on from my pervious post about The Gates of Vienna, aka The Siege of Vienna.... and in addition to my 2009 post "Why the Battle of Tours"...  below, an update from Grokipedia. 

Which adds to my point: that there were two seminal moments in European history where the invasions of Islam were beaten back. First the Battle of Tours (7th C) and second the Siege of Vienna (17th C). 

Historians have seen the Battle of Tours as a "historical turning point".  As was the Siege of Vienna 1,000 years later. Which also shows just how persistent this ideology is. It's resilient and it's determined. And we face it today, in all its manifestations -- influencers, mosques, push for Sharia law, mass emigration to the west, in politics, in demographics and also in war: bullets, babies and ballots. 

Anyway, here's a bit from Grokipedia:

The Battle of Tours is viewed by many historians as a turning point that halted Muslim expansion northward from Spain into Western Europe after the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, helping preserve a predominantly Christian Europe. 

In his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789), Edward Gibbon depicted the Battle of Tours as a decisive check on Umayyad expansion, arguing that it rescued Western Europe from the "civil and religious yoke of the Koran," averting a scenario where Islamic doctrine might have supplanted Christianity across the continent, including in institutions like Oxford. 

Gibbon emphasized the battle's role in preserving classical heritage and Christian institutions amid the rapid Arab conquests, which had already overrun North Africa and Iberia by 732, viewing the Frankish victory under Charles Martel as the high-water mark of Islamic incursions into Gaul.[30]

Sir Edward Creasy, in Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World (1851), similarly ranked Tours among history's turning points, asserting that Martel's triumph inflicted irrecoverable losses on the Umayyad forces—estimated at tens of thousands—and marked the northernmost extent of Muslim military reach in Europe, thereby safeguarding the region's Christian identity against further conquest.[47] 

Creasy drew on contemporary Islamic chronicles to highlight the invaders' intent to extend the caliphate's domain, contending that without this defeat, the Saracens' momentum from prior victories, such as the fall of Narbonne in 720, could have led to the subjugation of Francia and beyond.[48]

Nineteenth-century Western historiography, building on Gibbon and Creasy, framed Tours as pivotal for civilizational continuity, correlating the battle's outcome with Europe's subsequent feudal-Christian development rather than the dhimmi subordination observed in Umayyad-held territories like al-Andalus, where non-Muslims faced jizya taxation and restricted rights.[49] 

This perspective underscored the empirical halt in expansion—Umayyad raids persisted but never regained pre-732 scale—as causal to preserving indigenous governance and religious liberty, contrasting with patterns of conquest and conversion in eastern Mediterranean precedents. 

Conservative interpreters within this tradition highlighted Tours as a bulwark against systemic Islamization, attributing Europe's trajectory of relative autonomy and cultural preservation to Martel's defense rather than mere logistical contingencies.[1]

What’s with the “Gates of Vienna”?

Look up “Gates of Vienna” and you’ll find it’s the name of a longstanding blog (2004), which is anti the Islamisation of Europe. I’ve always thought of it as one of two most famous times that Europe fought back invasions of Ottoman (i.e.. Muslim) forces. The other most famous one being the original name of this blog, “The Battle of Tours”. 

/Snip: 

The site's name [Gates of Vienna] draws from the 1683 Siege of Vienna, where allied Christian forces repelled the Ottoman Empire's advance, symbolising for its contributors an analogous modern defense against jihadist expansionism and demographic shifts.[3]

An Occasional Reader claims there was no such battle since a Sichuanese peasant had assassinated one of the Mongol Khans, so no invasion of Mongol/Ottoman troops happened at the time. i.e. China saved Europe from Islamisation even if inadvertently. 

Two things: 

1. There actually was a *Siege of Vienna*. Which happened over three centuries after any of the Khans was killed in China:

The name "Gates of Vienna" derives from the Siege of Vienna, a major military engagement from July to September 1683 in which an Ottoman force of over 140,000 troops besieged the Habsburg capital, only to be repelled by a Holy League army of about 80,000, including a decisive Polish cavalry charge led by King John III Sobieski on September 12 that shattered the invaders and halted Ottoman advances into Central Europe.[12][13] This event, often regarded as a high-water mark of Ottoman power in Europe, symbolized the limits of Islamic expansion westward.[12]

2. There was no single documented Chinese assassin of a Khan. At least as far as the internet can find. There were indeed Khan deaths from fighting Chinese, but three centuries before the Siege of Vienna. 

Here is Google’s Gemini:

Based on historical records, 

there is no verified account of a single Chinese person assassinating a Mongol Khan, although several Khans died during campaigns in China or from illnesses contracted during them. 

However, historical records note several relevant, often mysterious, deaths:

• Möngke Khan (1259): He died during the Siege of Diaoyu Castle in Sichuan, China. While some accounts attribute his death to battle injuries or disease (dysentery/cholera), popular legends or alternate accounts sometimes cite assassination attempts during the fierce resistance by Song Chinese forces.
• Genghis Khan (1227): He died during a campaign against the Western Xia in China. While some legends suggest he was killed by a Tangut princess or by being shot with an arrow, most historians believe he died of illness or injuries from a fall during his final campaign.
• Assassination Attempt on Genghis Khan (Early career): Records indicate that during a battle, a warrior named Zurgadai (later given the name Jebe) shot an arrow that hit Genghis Khan's horse (or him, depending on the source) in the neck. Genghis Khan admired his honesty in admitting it and made him a high-ranking general. 

Context on the "Assassins":
While not Chinese, the Hashashin (Order of Assassins) from the Middle East interacted with the Mongols. Hulagu Khan, brother of Möngke, was tasked with destroying them, and later, the Mongols actually executed the Assassins' leader after he traveled to meet Möngke Khan. 

Conclusion:
While Chinese resistance was highly effective in killing or fatally injuring Mongke Khan in 1259 through siege warfare, a singular, documented "assassin" story is not supported by mainstream history. 

"Your enemies make you stronger; your allies make you weaker" | Frank Herbert

Frank Herbert, author of "Dune", was the guy who wrote that: 

"Your enemies make you stronger; your allies make you weaker".

Similar: Sun Tzu:"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

What they mean is that conflict and opposition force growth, while the comfort of alliances can lead to complacency and dependency. 

The difference today is not that alliances lead to "complacency and dependency", because none of America's allies, none in Europe at least, can be counted on for any support that might make one "complacent" or "dependent". 

Today it's worse than that. 

They are Allies In Name Only. AINO's. Allies, but not in fact. They are "allies" in scare quotes. They make no attempt at the sort of support that might make make one complacent or dependent. 

Not that this is a Trump thing. It's been a thing for a long time. As Victor Davis Hanson describes in the vid above. 

Spain, for example, has been refusing to help America going back way past Trump. The rest of Europe has been leeching off America for its defence since the second world war. And being pusillanimous allies when called on. 

Meantime, America's enemies have been making America stronger. Better at what it does. Better at its defence. Better at its offense. Better at being a lethal fighting force. 

Better at being a counter to the depredations of China in the South China Sea. 

Can China have failed to notice the brutal, pinpoint lethality of America's fighting machine? Can they fail to have noticed how much more of a practiced military it is? Can they fail to have noticed the stark contrast between America's lethality and their own failure in the last war they fought, against tiny Vietnam, in 1979, which China lost? We, in turn, have not failed to notice that the Chinese PLA Air force has paused its provocative flights over Taiwanese air space. 

Is there any worse "ally" of the United States than the United Kingdom, the UK of today?? Surely not. What a shame. What an embarrassment. Say I as one with British background. To watch Starmer bend the knee to Islam and to refuse help to its oldest ally. In it's allegedly "Special Relationship". 

Oh, dear, oh dear. What a shamozzle. 

Our place. Looking to Central Hong Kong

“The 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonisation of endless cultures.” | Gad Saad

	Gad Saad ⁦‪@GadSaad‬⁩ There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, many are peaceful, many are not. There is a 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonization of endless cultures. Hundreds of millions of people (conservative estimate) have been forcibly converted, subjugated, enslaved, or killed by   11/3/2026, 10:01 am

There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, many are peaceful, many are not.  There is a 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonisation of endless cultures.  

Hundreds of millions of people (conservative estimate) have been forcibly converted, subjugated, enslaved, or killed by the Noble Faith of Peaceful Genocides.  

If you study the foundational Islamic tenets, (the Trinity of Islam) they could not be any more antithetical to American freedoms & liberties.  Literally.  

So, now I ask you:  

Given that we all know an Ahmad who is very nice and peaceful, what is the evidence that you would need to see, as Americans, to say: "I don't wish to tolerate Islam in my society?"  

Or is it that no amount of evidence can convince you because "freedom of religion"?

Lionel Shriver discusses this very issue with Dad Saves America. 

“Iran is not what it seems” | Michael Doran and Gadi Taub

 

Journalists, academics and commenters Michael Doran and Gadi Taub, from the centre right perspective, give informed views of where the war is at and where it might end. Including pessimistic predictions. And including disagreements amongst themselves. 

At the end Gadi says that in Israel the Left  mainly looks at views from the left, but the Right tends to look at both left and right.  Michael says it’s the same in America. I agree. I’ve posted a number of times studies (e.g. “What the Left and Right read”, “Bubbles and Vortexes”) that show conservatives read and watch more widely across the political spectrum than does the Left.  Part of the reason being that the left is surrounded by the default media, which is the Mainstream media and which leans left: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post. 

“What’s the truth?”. Michael says “I don’t know”. Re: whether Arab states are urging Trump to continue to the end, or to stop. Polar opposites. The truth of that will come out eventually. Meantime “I don’t know” is a decent answer. 

Sometimes we know an Important Truth without necessarily knowing The Detailed Truth. Like: reports that 40,000 Iranians were murdered by the regime. Or is it “only” 7,000? The Important Truth is: “it’s a lot”. The Detailed Truth can come later. 

The best thing to get to the Truth or a good approximation of it is: read around the subject. Left, right and middle, including Social Media. A Venn Diagram with “the Truth” somewhere in the common area. 

Which for folks on the Left who follow the Iran war, means reading not just BBC and Bloomberg, but also people like Doran & Taub, above. 

There’s also media agglomeration sites, like Ground News. Which specifically gather all the views, far left to far right. 

There’s also one’s own Common Sense. The sniff test. Does it seem true. Not always the best test, biut surely a good first filter. 

“Fellow countrymen want you murdered” | Alana Mastrangelo

	Alana Mastrangelo ⁦‪@ARmastrangelo‬⁩ Beyond his assassination, which was already the worst thing I've ever seen in my life, the celebration from leftists sealed it. It was the realization that a certain percentage of your fellow countrymen don't just disagree with your views, they want you murdered. And that   9/3/2026, 10:20 pm

Alana Mastrangelo considers the issue of violence from the left, in the wake of bombs hurled by American born jihadis, shouting "Allahu Akhbar" at right-wing demonstrators in New York City. Which mayor Mamdani managed to conflate, giving the impression that the bombs were hurled by "White Nationalists". The closet Jihadi! 

It was surprising, shocking really, to see how many teachers gloried in the murder of Charlie Kirk. And now bomb peaceful protesters, whose only crime is to disagree with them. 

The “Islam” vs “Islamism” trap | Dan Burmawi

I’ve never been much of a one for the distinction between “Islam” and “Islamism”. 

Though I do recognise its usefulness as a tactical split to acknowledge the millions of Muslims who do not follow their faith down all its prescribed, violent, tenets. (Which I call the Trinity of Islam).

Still, it only takes a small percent of islamists to cause havoc and chaos. Just as it only took 5% of Russian Bolsheviks to make Revolution. Nazis were a small minority of Germans when they took power. 

/Snip

“… Islam is not a private faith but an inherently political ideology, with expansionist ambitions embedded in its foundational texts and history. From this perspective, vigilance requires scrutinizing anyone with ties, however historical or familial, to Islamist networks, lest the West repeat the mistakes that allowed groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to embed themselves within democratic institutions.

A neat phrase encapsulates this conundrum: 

“Islamists (or Jihadis) are snakes in the grass. Islam is the grass”. 

Dan Burmawi analyses the issue in “The Islam-Islamism Trap”. 

“Beijing’s message is clear: Hong Kong must shape up and speed up” | SCMP

There is the usual praise for the Hong Kong government and Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu's leadership. One striking difference is that Premier Li Qiang included in his annual work report, delivered at the opening session of the National People's Congress (NPC), a call on Hong Kong to improve its governance and align itself with the national plan. Li has made the central government's position clear: improve the city's governance and get with the programme already. [Link]

I don't like this. "National Plans"? That's for socialist economies. Top-down economies. Not capitalist ones like us here in Hong Kong.

I know there are many in the west, in capitalist economies, that are in love with similar things. Like "industrial policy". I'm not sure any has been hugely successful. 

Rather leave things to the genius of the market. Of the pricing mechanism. It's the market that’s really best at "shaking up". It’s the most successful of all systems in "speeding up". 

Remember how China sped up in the late 1970s? It wasn't by National Plans, but by releasing market forces. I was there when it happened.i saw it with mine own eyes. 

It's the market, baby!

Abiding by the “Rules-based order”… except when you don’t

From today’s South China Morning Post 

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi “… urged Manila to 

“… be aware of its responsibility, refrain from being distracted by its own self-interests, demonstrate its due commitment, and play a positive and constructive role in promoting regional peace and stability” as Asean chair.

Does that come across as bullying? Sure does to some.

The “Rules based order” that everyone is so obsessed with lately, is the post-war order that was birthed by the United States. The Marshall Plan, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, later the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations and its myriad bodies, Japan’s peace constitution, Germany’s peace constitution. All American ideas and ideals. And by any measure most magnanimous. 

At the beginning China was the America and the West’s good ally. Until it wasn’t. It was allowed to join the WTO and abided by its rules, until it didn’t. 

It loved the United Nations until it found against its expansive “9-dash” claims in 2019. Until it didn’t. 

So now is pushing its “Golden Rules” for disputes in the South China Sea. Here’s hoping they are magnanimous.

Just looking at the United Nations alone, it’s extraordinary just how corrupted it’s become. With “human rights” bodies chaired by the likes of North Korea and Yemen. With an anti-Israel, anti Zionist obsession. A dysfunctional Security Council and a virtue-signalling General Assembly.  The United Nations, founded and majority funded by the United States. Which one could forgive for getting tired of its nonsense. 

Repeat after me: "The war in Iran is NOT an 'illegal' war"! | Natasha Hausfdorff and Hillel Neuer

 

International Law expert Natasha Hausdorff once again lays out the case to Hillel Neuer for why the current war in Iran is not "illegal" according to international law. 

There will be those who do not trust her, simply because she stands for Israel. 

To which I'd say, if you think the war is indeed "illegal" then you have to say WHY. 

I have not seen that said, by anyone claiming that it is "illegal". I have not seen anyone address and debunk the points that Natasha makes here and in earlier interviews. 

Keir Starmer's obsession with "international law" is outsourcing life and death decisions. Eylon Levy

"Three futures for Iran" | Bernard Haykel & Mishal Husain

 Bernard Haykel speaks to Mishal Husain ex of the BBC, now with her own podcast on Bloomberg television. 

Like I said in my first post on this latest mid-east war ("Khamenei is dead. Yay!"), I'm going to post non-Mainstream Media takes, because if you want the take from the Left, you only have to go the MSM itself: the BBCs, the CNNs, the MSNBCs, the New York Times and WaPo's. 

But here I am posting something from Mishal Husain, on her Bloomberg TV podcast, mainly because it's been sent to me by a number of left-leaning folks, in one case being labelled "the best so far". 

To which I'd ask, "compared to what?" Have these folks watched any of the dozens of non-MSM takes out there? Or even just the ones I've posted on this blog, since the beginning of the war? (see links at the bottom).

Professor Bernard Haykel comes across as a decent and knowledgeable man. I defer to him on his expertise on the Middle East. 

Here I'll just quibble with a few points:

1.  The framing as Iranian "Retaliation": 

Note that right at the outset Mishal Husain talks of an Iranian "retaliation", as if the Israeli and US action was a first strike. But this is patently not the case. I clearly remember when the first Ayatollah, Khomeini, came to power in 1979, and his henchmen took dozens of US diplomats from the US embassy hostage. They remained hostage for 444 days. 

The Iranian parliament chants "Death to America; Death to Israel" at the beginning of every session. 

For 47 years, Iran has been attacking Israel and the United States. 

Let me rely on Gemini AI here to summarise: 

Major Historical Attacks by Iran (1979–2000)

• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979–1981): Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
• Beirut Embassy Bombing (1983): An Iran-backed suicide bomber killed 17 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
• Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing (1983): Hezbollah, supported by Iran, killed 241 U.S. military personnel in a truck bombing, the highest single-day death toll for the U.S. Armed Forces since the Vietnam War.
• Kidnapping/Murder of William Buckley (1984): Iran-backed terrorists kidnapped and later killed the CIA station chief in Beirut.
• Khobar Towers Bombing (1996): Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hijaz killed 19 U.S. Airmen in Saudi Arabia. 

Attacks by Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan (2001–2020) 

• Iraq War Casualties (2003–2011): The U.S. Department of Defense assessed that Iran was responsible for the deaths of at least 608 American troop deaths in Iraq, representing 17% of all U.S. service personnel deaths in that period. These casualties were largely caused by EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) supplied by Iran.
• Karbala Provincial Headquarters Raid (2007): IRGC Quds Force operatives were implicated in a raid that killed five U.S. soldiers.
• Afghanistan Attacks (2001–2020): Iran provided weapons and funding to Taliban factions, contributing to the deaths or injuries of over 30 U.S. personnel.
• Al-Asad Air Base Attack (2020): Following the killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the U.S. base in Iraq, causing traumatic brain injuries to over 100 U.S. service member

===========================

The above doesn't cover what Keir Starmer of the UK admitted recently: that they had -- "luckily" -- foiled at least 20 Iranian terror attacks in the UK, in just the laset year. The same in the US. As well as a number of assassination attempts on the US president. 

Then there's Israel, which has been surrounded by a "Ring of Fire" of Iranian proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. They have carried out regular attacks on Israel, killing many, and vowed to continue doing so. 

The would-be genocidal Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 was only the latest outrage. 

So, spare me the "retaliation" framing, Mishal and Bernard!

This -- the current war -- is US and Israel retaliation for half a century of attacks. 

Arguably one that should have been done much earlier. 

2.  Iranian people's reactions: 

There is nothing mentioned about the diaspora Iranians celebrations, the celebrations of Iranians within Iran, at the killing of Khamenei, and 48 of his top henchmen. Nothing. The video shows only -- and in many places -- mourners of the regime, black-burka clad professional cryers. But not the women happily ripping off their hijabs. The women, by the way, that no liberal western woman has had the guts, or honesty, to speak up for. 

Even Haykel mentions that the regime is supported by "perhaps 20%" of the people. Others who know something of Iran and the region, like Younes Sadaghiani, say that it's only 10%. Let's say then it's 10% to 20% who support the regime. That leaves 80 to 90% who do not support the regime. 

Neither Haykel nor Husain think it worth talking about that? 

3. Murder of innocent Iranian civilians: 

Not a mention, not a squeak, not a passing reference to the regime of "religions lunatics" machine-gunning down their own civlians because they had the temerity to demonstrate against the Mullahs. This happened just the other day. With numbers up to 40,000 being killed. Murdered. Nothing of that, Mishal? Not words for them, Bernard? 

4.  "Chaos" as the most likely outcome? 

Perhaps. But even Haykel admits that other outcomes are possible, in each case, very much preferable to what we have now.  Elsewhere I have posted videos of experts on Iran who list up to six possible outcomes (see below). It's not necessary to know which specific outcome is most likely to happen, if you believe, as I do - as many Iranians do -- that any of them is better than what we have now. 

5.  Two state solution: ?? 

I was shocked when Haykel mentioned, towards the end,  this as being some kind of solution to regional strife. That's truly bizarre. When we know that Hamas, the dominant force in both Gaza and, de facto, in Judea and Samaria, state, repeatedly and explicitly that they do not want a state, that that is NOT their aim, and that their aim is the extirpation of the state of Israel and the extermination of all Jews in the world. We have to internalise this, professor! Sad and uncomfortable as it is. 

That's it for now. 

I was interested to watch this video above and it was far from the worst analysis that I've seen. But "the best"? 

In the meantime, I invite those that find "the best" analysis in a video like the one above, to read and watch a bit more widely. 

A start is my posts on this blog:

• ALL my posts on the latest war in Iran, Label: "Operation Epic Fury"

Some individual posts:

• SIX possible outcomes. Michael Doran and Gadi Taub
• Freedom and Fear in Iran. My own recollections of visit to Iran, 1974
• Western Women betray Iranian Women. Masih Alinejad
• Which also links to "Iranian activist women are so beautiful"
• "No the Iranian war is NOT illegal". Natasha Hausdorff
• Iranians support the war. Younes Sadaghiani
• "We're dealing with stone cold killers". Caroline Glick

“We’re dealing with stone cold killers” | Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick, I’ve fallowed for years. She is a most careful and thoughtful anlysist.

She is now international affairs adviser to Bibi. So well worth listening to. 

Lesbians for Trump. Gen Z’er for Trump

 Two smart and articulate young folks, talk to classical liberal, recovering progressive-leftist Dave Rubin. 

Political commentator, Jamie Mishel, and host of the Moderate Commentator, Jacob Smith. 

Elderly Banyan

Near our house, Hong Kong

Iranians support the war against the regime

Younes Sadaghiani, Iranian born, U.K. based filmmaker and international affairs commenter, speaks to Stand Tall Israel. 

Fantastically eloquent. Here, about the “morons” who defend the Iran regime, the mad mullahs, the Theocratic lunatics. 

He calls out the hypocrites in the west. Those who fail to support minority rights and women’s rights when it’s in the middle east and is not anti Israel. 

Called out by name: Tucker Carlson, Candice Owen’s, Cenk Uyghur, Ana Kasperian, Mahdi Hasan.  I don’t want to highlight them, as I usually do with name, because they’re such hypocrites, liars and snakes in the grass.. 

90% of Iranians support the current war, support the United States and Israel attacks and hopes for regime change. “Hope … and apprehension. Hope … and concerns. But overall, HOPE”. 

19:55 is Mossad infiltration of Iran. They knew when Khamenei was going to the toilet. Elsewhere I’ve read the head of Iran’s anti- Mossad Unit was himself.Mosssd. 

Also: it’s a DEFENSIVE war!

Timestamps to top video:

0:00 Introduction – Who speaks for the Iranian people? 0:57 Younes responds to pro-Palestinian narratives 2:32 Why many Iranians celebrated Khamenei’s death 4:42 Western media double standards 5:56 Hypocrisy of global protests 6:55 Western influencers and the Iran narrative 9:58 Sectarian politics in the West 11:31 “This is not starting a war — it’s ending one” 12:47 Why Israel is not the enemy of the Iranian people 14:39 Why Iran attacked its Arab neighbors 16:20 Should the Islamic Republic still have a voice at the UN? 17:46 What happens if the regime collapses? 19:55 Mossad infiltration of Iran 21:24 Will the Iranian military defect? 23:12 Could Iran fall into civil war? 24:35 What happens to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis? 25:37 Message to Iranians inside and outside Iran 26:23 The personal cost of speaking out 28:07 The real Iran the world doesn’t see