Archive for the ‘Islamic terrorism’ category

Brooklyn: Uber-driving Muslim Immigrant Plotted Times Square Truck Rampage

November 22, 2016

Brooklyn: Uber-driving Muslim Immigrant Plotted Times Square Truck Rampage, Creeping Sharia, November 22, 2016

mohammed_rafik_naji_1121

Source: ISIS-Inspired Brooklyn Resident Discussed Times Square Attack « CBS New York

A 37-year-old Brooklyn resident is facing terror charges after he allegedly expressed support for a truck attack in Times Square similar to one ISIS claimed responsibility for in Nice, France.

As CBS2’s Dick Brennan reported, the federal criminal complaint was issued Monday against Mohamed Rafik Naji, 37 – a citizen of Yemen, but a permanent legal resident of the U.S.

Naji was awoken and arrested at 3 a.m. Monday at his home in Brooklyn, authorities said. Cellphone video showed federal agents leading Naji from his apartment on Clarendon Road in Flatbush.

A witness who recorded his arrest reported that dozens of officers from at least five agents came to arrest Naji.

“He was arrested at 3 this morning and charged with material support of a terrorist organization, which you know, that’s what we do in New York now,” said Naji defense attorney Susan Kellman.

Naji appeared in U.S. District Court in Downtown Brooklyn for an initial hearing Tuesday afternoon.

READ THE FULL COMPLAINT

The Justice Department said Naji has been supporting ISIS or ISIL since 2014. Naji traveled to Turkey and Yemen between March 2015 and September 2015, according to the criminal complaint.

Kellman said her client had innocent and legitimate reasons to be in Yemen.

“According to the complaint, he traveled overseas to Yemen, which you know, is immediately suspect in the view of our government,” Kellman said. “Of course, the fact that he has family over there and three children didn’t seem to affect the government one way or the other, but he certainly had legitimate reasons to be over there.”

But when Naji returned, prosecutors said he expressed support for carrying out attacks in Times Square, similar to the one on Bastille Day in July in Nice, France that killed 86 people.

The complaint states Naji emailed his girlfriend, who allegedly wired him money on several occasions, about his efforts to join the terror group in Yemen. In one email Naji allegedly wrote (cq), “It’s very hard to get in I’m on my 5 try its difficult mad po po military and ppl here very scared inshallah I make it m keep trying if not m have to go from somewhere else.”

The complaint further spelled out a recorded conversation Naji had with a confidential informant in which he allegedly said: If there is a truck, I mean a garbage truck and one drives it there to Times-Square and crushes them shshshshshsh… Times-Square Day….They want an operation in Times-Square.”

Naji allegedly told the informant further: “They want an operation in Times-Square, reconnaissance group already put out a scene, the Islamic State already put up scenes of Times-Square.”

But in a later email, Naji said, “we can’t get in,” the complaint read.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the arrest is “a sharp reminder of the evolving threat of global terrorism.”

“New York must remain vigilant in the face of hate and intolerance, and continue to advance the core values of democracy that this state and nation were founded upon,” Cuomo said, adding there is no specific threat at this time.

Just last week, an online ISIS magazine described the upcoming Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade as “an excellent target” for a similar track attack. The NYPD is already planning a large security detail.

“It is a very large detail,” said NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill. “I think this year, you’re going to see a lot more block cars and sand trucks on the cross-streets.”

Authorities said Naji works as an Uber driver in Brooklyn.

Naji is also accused of trying to join ISIS in Yemen. On Monday night, neighbors in his apartment building say while they didn’t know Naji, they are still fearful.

“I think it’s crazy, honestly. It’s just crazy,” one woman said from behind her closed door. “I don’t what to say.”

Naji is charged with providing material support to a terror group. His attorney said they are trying to put together a bail package.

 

‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs. National Security and Public Safety

November 22, 2016

‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs. National Security and Public Safety, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, November 22, 2016

(America has immigration laws. It is the duty of the Executive Branch to enforce them. It is not the proper function of the President to change them or to prevent their enforcement, as Obama has done by executive order and otherwise. Congress should pass whatever additional legislation is needed to stem the flow of Federal funding to sanctuary enclaves. — DM)

mn-1

Why ‘sanctuary city’ mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States to protest the election of Donald Trump and his promises to secure the U.S./Mexican border and enforce our immigration laws.

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities and was the focus of my article, “Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities: How sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.”

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors and are vulnerable to arrest and removal (deportation).

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens.  However, what is generally not understood is that Sanctuary Cities endanger every person in the United States, no matter where they live.

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks they might carry out in the cities where they live or in other cities they could easily travel to on the day of an attack.

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure — By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers wrecking havoc on the lives of those Americans and their families when they lose their jobs and their paychecks.

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations.

To provide you with such an example, consider my commentary, “Immigration Fraud Linked To San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family: Alleged supplier of material support now also charged with marriage fraud.”

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

As an INS agent I investigated and arrested aliens from countries from around the world.  My colleagues and I did not single out violators of immigration laws on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity.

For about three years I was assigned as the Marine Intelligence Officer for the INS New York District Office.  I was responsible for joining members of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs in boarding ships in and around the New York City area to search for contraband, stow-ways and ship-jumpers (crew members who absconded and failed to return to their vessels before they departed from the United States.)

While such vessels provided individuals from many countries the opportunity to gain illegal access to the United States, the majority of crew members who went “missing” were citizens of Greece.

As part of my duties I was responsible for tracking down those aliens wherever they lived and worked and took the into custody to arrange for their deportation from the United States.

Members of the Greek community frequently complained to me that the INS was only concerned about Greeks.

When I worked on several investigations concerning organized crime, we often heard members of the Italian immigrant community complain that we were targeting Italians.

When we partnered with the Public Morals Division of the NYPD to raid brothels to shut down those locations in China Town, local resident grumbled about how unfair this was to the Asian community.

In reality the “targeting” that we did at the INS involved law violators irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity.

Period.

However, because of the utterly false and irresponsible Orwellian narrative created by the open borders immigration anarchists, incredibly, many gullible and misinformed Americans have been conned into believing that opposing fair and effective enforcement of our immigration laws is an act of heroism and a way of fighting prejudice and bigotry.

On November 14, 2016 NPR reported, “Mayor Rahm Emanuel: ‘Chicago Always Will Be A Sanctuary City’.

That report began with the following paragraphs:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel added his voice to the chorus of big-city mayors who say theirs will remain “sanctuary cities” in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line positions on illegal immigration.

Surrounded by immigration activists, business leaders and state and federal lawmakers, Emanuel sought to reduce the fear of immigrants living in this country without authorization.

“To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago,” said Emanuel at a news conference called to publicize the expansion of mental health services for people anxious over the election results.

“Chicago has in the past been a sanctuary city. … It always will be a sanctuary city,” the mayor said.

His comments come on the heels of Trump’s appearance Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, in which the president-elect promised to deport all immigrants with criminal records.

You would imagine that the mayor of any town would be thrilled to have criminal aliens deported to end the concern of recidivism and keep the residents of those cities safe.

Many mayors do see things that way and support cooperative efforts between their police departments and ICE.

However, the mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and the governors of Sanctuary States have “done the math” and have, unbelievably decided that achieving political objectives is far more important than protecting innocent lives and the security of our nation.

Such politicians must not find “sanctuary” in the voting booth come their election day.

FULL MEASURE: November 20, 2016- Crossing the Line

November 22, 2016

FULL MEASURE: November 20, 2016- Crossing the Line via YouTube, November 20, 2016

(Our southern border and corruption in the Border Patrol. –DM)

Reuters: “Far-right” angered as Muslim migrant sets fire in Australia bank, injuring 27

November 20, 2016

Reuters: “Far-right” angered as Muslim migrant sets fire in Australia bank, injuring 27, Jihad Watch

“Far-right anti-Muslim groups have seized on the arson attack to call for a ban on refugees entering the country.”

Maybe they’re not “far-right” or “anti-Muslim” at all. Maybe they just don’t like things like, you know, jihad massacres and arson attacks in banks.

Their concerns, however, are misplaced — as always! “Victoria’s state Premier Daniel Andrews said on Sunday there was no political motivation involved in the attack on the bank,” and demanded that the attack not be used as “a political weapon by anybody who finds fault with any of the policy settings we have at the moment.”

How he knows there was no political motivation behind the attack, he didn’t say. But Reuters does tell us that the attacker “was suffering mental and financial problems.”

Mental problems! Of course! And what better way to deal with one’s financial problems than to set fire to a bank?

australia-bank-fire

“Suspect in Australian bank fire identified as asylum seeker,” by Harry Pearl, Reuters, November 20, 2016:

A man suspected of starting a fire in an Australian bank on Friday that injured 27 people has been identified as an asylum seeker, angering far-right groups and adding to an increasingly heated national debate over immigration.

Six people were taken to hospital in critical condition after the 21-year-old suspect walked into a Melbourne branch of Commonwealth Bank of Australia and lit an accelerant, setting himself and the office on fire, Victoria Police said, adding the man was also in serious condition.

Far-right anti-Muslim groups have seized on the arson attack to call for a ban on refugees entering the country. They rallied in the city on Sunday to celebrate Republic Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential election victory….

Victoria’s state Premier Daniel Andrews said on Sunday there was no political motivation involved in the attack on the bank.

“It is not a commentary, and it oughtn’t to be used as a political weapon by anybody who finds fault with any of the policy settings we have at the moment,” The Age newspaper quoted Andrews as saying.

Habib Habib, from the Australian Burmese Rohingya Organization, said the man alleged to have carried out the attack was a Rohingya asylum seeker.

The man, who had spent time at an immigration detention on Christmas Island, was suffering mental and financial problems, he said. A federal government source confirmed to Reuters the man arrived in Australia by boat in 2013.

Clueless Clapper Calls It Quits

November 18, 2016

Clueless Clapper Calls It Quits, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, November 18, 2016

crapper

While he was Director of National Intelligence, Clapper made every American less safe. He epitomized the denial and willful ignorance that characterized the Obama administration’s approach to the jihad threat. In this time of swamp-draining, Clueless Clapper is leaving the stage not a moment too soon.

************************

Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, submitted his letter of resignation on Wednesday, and the next day he told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that doing so “felt pretty good….I have 64 days left and I’d have a pretty hard time with my wife going past that.” Why? Is Mrs. Clapper opposed to intelligence policies based on politically correct fantasies and willful ignorance?

Nothing epitomizes more perfectly the Obama Administration’s consistent refusal to come to grips with the reality of the global jihad than Clapper’s embarrassing tenure as Director of National Intelligence.

One incident that took place in December 2010, four months after Clapper took office, epitomized his abject incompetence. British authorities arrested twelve jihadists who had been planning to set off bombs in a variety of locations; that same day, Clapper appeared on Diane Sawyer’s ABC show, on which Sawyer said to him that she expected he must be very busy with the London arrests. Clapper looked confused, and admitted that he had no idea what she was talking about. Arrests? A terror plot?

Had Sawyer been conducting a man-on-the-street interview, and Clapper was in reality the befuddled accountant he appears to be, he might be excused for having no idea that a large-scale anti-terror operation had just been carried out in London. But this was the Director of National Intelligence, and he was far less informed and up to speed on the situation than was Sawyer herself, or probably an entire legion of befuddled accountants.

Obama’s team ran interference for Clapper, claiming essentially that Clapper had been so involved with the London arrests that he was too preoccupied to answer Sawyer’s question properly, but that his display of cluelessness was no indication of…cluelessness.

But it was. Clapper showed that again in February 2011, when he claimed at the height of the Egyptian “Arab Spring” that the Muslim Brotherhood was “largely secular,” a claim as absurd as it was inaccurate. Although the subsequent torrent of ridicule compelled the Obama camp to issue a correction, the subtext of Clapper’s statement was clear: the Obama Administration had no problem with Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, and was not only going to do nothing to stop it, but was going actively to enable it.

The Brotherhood that Obama worked so assiduously to aid is dedicated, of course, to establishing the rule of Islamic law not only in Egypt, but everywhere that it possibly can. And if that rather commonplace fact was too much for Clapper and his boss, they could have resorted to a much simpler indicator of the religious foundation of the Brotherhood’s political program: its name. It isn’t, after all, called the Arab Nationalist Brotherhood, or the Egyptian Brotherhood, but rather the Muslim Brotherhood. Its name itself shows that it is no more secular than the Christian Brothers religious order.

Clapper also appeared woefully (if not willfully) ignorant of the Brotherhood’s pro-Sharia agenda, and no doubt completely oblivious to the implications for the United States and the world of an Egypt governed by Islamic law.

There was, of course, more. In March 2011, Clapper told Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) that Russia and China represented the greatest “mortal threat” to the United States.

Russia and China? Not North Korea and Iran, or the forces of the global jihad that grew steadily more aggressive while Clapper was Director of National Intelligence? Clapper’s statement sounded like a Rip Van Winkle who had been sleeping for twenty years or longer, and nobody had gotten around to clueing him in to the fact that the Cold War was over.

Had Clapper, a retired lieutenant general in the Air Force and longtime intelligence professional, made any study in the area of national intelligence since 1985? Was he aware that the world situation has drastically changed since 1985? Had he had any kind of thought at all since 1985?

James Clapper is perhaps the most abysmally ignorant and unqualified individual ever to have held a position of so much responsibility. While he was Director of National Intelligence, Clapper repeatedly demonstrated that he had no idea about the nature of the world today, no sense of the genuine threats that face the United States, and no clue as to what to do about those threats.

Yet instead of firing him, Obama continually made excuses for him, explaining away his idiotic remarks, and running interference for him with the international media. What Clapper did to merit such solicitude is unclear, but the stakes were far too high for the nonsense and fantasy that Clapper purveyed. While he was Director of National Intelligence, Clapper made every American less safe. He epitomized the denial and willful ignorance that characterized the Obama administration’s approach to the jihad threat. In this time of swamp-draining, Clueless Clapper is leaving the stage not a moment too soon.

European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims

November 18, 2016

European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims, Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou, November 18, 2016

This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself.

In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but “lunatics,” “maniacs” and “youths”.

To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.

By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.

Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.

 

According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:

some traditional media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants”, in which the columnist likened migrants to “cockroaches”…

The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”, along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife…

The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit “Islamophobic” acts against Muslims.

ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fueling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.

 

2053

ECRI is basing its report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after terrorist’s attacks.

In the seven days prior to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, where 12 people were killed, there were 12 reported (anti Muslim) incidents, but in the seven days following, there were 45. This pattern was similar in relation to the terror attacks in Sydney, in December and Copenhagen, in February.

So, according to the ECRI and scholars of Teesside University, when Muslim jihadists murder people and the press reports that killers are Muslims, the press, and not Islamists, is encouraging “Islamophobic incidents” in Britain. According to ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”

For the ECRI, the biggest problem is:

“… where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”

The report does not explain what could be “alternative explanations.” But we can find examples in French press: when a Muslim attacks a soldier and tries to take his gun, he is not an Islamist terrorist, but a “lunatic.” Such attacks by “lunatics” are very common in France.

The French press downplays attacks by deciding not to name Muslim perpetrators: incriminating a “Mohamed” could, in the minds of French journalists, incite retaliations against Muslims. In another example, Muslim gangs cannot be connected to any form of violence, so they become “youths.” In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but “lunatics”, “maniacs” and “youths.”

But that is France. In Britain, tabloids are not so polite, and they understand perfectly the intentions of the ECRI report: to ban the word “Muslim” when it is associated with “violence or terrorism.”

The ECRI Report Marks a U-Turn in Free Speech

This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than the hate speech itself. Prohibiting journalists from naming “Islamic terrorism,” and encouraging them to hide the association of Muslims with terrorism, is an attempt to misrepresent the truth in the same way the former Soviet Union censored the truth. Taking advantage of some real racist articles in tabloids — not many, because not many are quoted in the report — to attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.

The proof of submission lies in ECRI’s recommendations to the British government:

  • “establish an independent press regulator”;
  • “rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards”;
  • “review the provisions on incitement to hatred with a view to making them more effective and usable”;
  • “establish a real dialogue with Muslims in order to combat Islamophobia. They should consult them on all policies which could affect Muslims”;
  • amending the Editor’s Code of Practice to ensure that members of groups can submit complaints as victims against biased or prejudicial reporting concerning their community”

By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. If a breach of that kind would open in the future, no doubt all the lobbies would rush into the breach: political parties, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, multinationals, everyone.

The British government did not fall into the trap, and firmly rebuffed ECRI’s demands. It told the European council body:

“The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.”

In Great Britain, and in all countries of European Union, anti-hate laws already exist. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

These laws have also been invoked often by Islamists to sue against anti-Islamist speech (cartoons of Muhammad, blasphemy against Islam, etc.) as manifestations of “racism” — fortunately with little success. Most court cases that Islamists have initiated have failed because Islam is not a race.

Agnes Callamard, expert on human rights, writes in reference to the United Nations Charter:

“ARTICLE 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary or legitimate to prevent advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, religion that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The organisation does not extend such legitimate restrictions to offensive and blasphemous expressions.”

It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.

Germany Captures ISIS Infiltrator in Refugee Flow

November 3, 2016

Germany Captures ISIS Infiltrator in Refugee Flow, Counter Jihad, November 3 , 2016

How many of those who have “gone missing” did so in order to build terrorist cells, or to plan attacks?  We will likely find out only as each attack occurs, as the police resources are vastly overstretched by the scale of the refugee flows. Belgian police correctly identified some of the Brussels bombers, but had to drop its inquiry into them because it could not spare the resources for that particular case.  German police are likewise facing a crime wave that is overwhelming their available resources.  Leaked reports indicate that German police only expect this refugee crime wave to worsen, as they lack the resources to stop it — or even to track where the refugees go once admitted to the country.

********************

A young Syrian man has been captured in Germany after conducting pre-attack surveillance and recruiting at least one German to join the fight for the Islamic State (ISIS).  The Syrian, identified as Shaas Al-M., presented himself as a refugee from the conflict in Syria.  In fact, he was an ISIS fighter on a mission to conduct terrorist attacks inside Europe.

He is not alone, the British newspaper Express reports.

There were two Islamist attacks by migrants in July.

Earlier this month another bogus Syrian migrant was captured after a bomb he was building was found in his apartment in the easter city of Chemnitz.

The phrase “bogus Syrian migrant” is confusing.  This was a legitimately a migrant from Syria, and not (say) a Korean trying to pass himself off as Syrian in order to migrate to Germany.  However, this migrant was not genuinely a refugee from the violence.  Rather, he came for the express purpose of creating new Islamist violence.  His job was to conduct attacks in Europe’s heartland in order to create pressure on them not to intervene against ISIS within the physical space of its Caliphate.

Politicians in Europe and America have alike defended the idea that refugees do not represent a serious security challenge to the West.  Candidate Hillary Clinton has argued for an increase of 550 percent in the number of refugees admitted to the United States from Syria.  Former political appointees from Homeland Security for the Obama administration have likewise tried to sell the idea that “vetting” will solve whatever problems these refugees pose, although in fact there are no longer intact security services within Syria with whom we might vet them — nor any reason the Assad regime, our enemy, would tell us the truth about them if it could do so.

Meanwhile, security professionals have been giving increasingly loud warnings about the danger of terrorists in the refugee flows.  The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said that terrorists were appearing in refugee flows “daily.”  Head of the CIA John Brennan said that terrorists were definitely using the refugee flows to penetrate Western Europe and, from there, America.

Even Hillary Clinton herself admitted in one of her private paid-for speeches, disclosed only by an unauthorized leak, that “we can’t possibly vet all those refugees.”

It turns out that even the ones who are not terrorists still bring substantial crime and social instability.  Germany’s new police figures show a spike of well over a hundred thousand new crimes in the first half of this year, tied to refugees.

Migrants in Germany have committed 142,500 crimes in just six months, police figures have revealed

This was the equivalent of 780 crimes a day – an increase of nearly 40 percent over 2015, according to data from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office…  ‘Migrant crime statistics for all of 2016, when they become available, are likely to show a significant increase over the 2015 numbers. One reason for this is that thousands of migrants who entered the country as ‘asylum seekers’ or ‘refugees’ have gone missing.’

How many of those who have “gone missing” did so in order to build terrorist cells, or to plan attacks?  We will likely find out only as each attack occurs, as the police resources are vastly overstretched by the scale of the refugee flows. Belgian police correctly identified some of the Brussels bombers, but had to drop its inquiry into them because it could not spare the resources for that particular case.  German police are likewise facing a crime wave that is overwhelming their available resources.  Leaked reports indicate that German police only expect this refugee crime wave to worsen, as they lack the resources to stop it — or even to track where the refugees go once admitted to the country.

As Geert Wilders again goes on trial for “hate speech,” European media campaigns furiously against him

November 2, 2016

As Geert Wilders again goes on trial for “hate speech,” European media campaigns furiously against him, Jihad Watch

Geert Wilders has yet again gone on trial in the Netherlands for “hate speech,” and this time the case against him is especially flimsy: as Europe is roiled by the criminal activity of Muslim migrants, he is being accused of “hate speech” for saying that the massive influx of immigrants from Morocco (from which most of the Muslim migrants in the Netherlands come) has to be stopped.

This trial could very easily backfire on the Dutch inquisitors, and make Wilders more popular than ever with the people of the Netherlands and Europe in general, as they are increasingly fed up with the political and media elites’ forcing them to accept a massive influx of Muslim migrants that ensures a future only of civil strife, bloodshed, and Sharia oppression.

Consequently, those elites are trying desperately to shore up their position. In this DW piece by freelance “journalist” Teri Schultz, Wilders is (of course) “far-right,” that all-purpose and meaningless semaphore that serves only to signal to right-thinking Deutsche Welle readers that Wilders must be opposed and shunned, his positions unexamined. Schultz contacted me to serve as the villain of her piece, being sure to tell her hapless readers that I am “known for extreme anti-Islam views,” to make sure that if any of them are foolish enough to find themselves agreeing with me, they will immediately reverse themselves and get their minds right. The term “extreme” also, since the Western governing class unanimously refers to jihad terrorists as “extremists,” also implies that I am a terrorist. (After the article came out, I challenged Schultz on this; she replied: “I don’t think even you would consider your views ‘mainstream’, do you?” I responded: “Absolutely yes. My views were the broad mainstream in the Western world from 632 AD until the 1960s. What changed? Not Islamic teaching.” To that she said: “Okay. You’d have to argue it with another expert, which I am not. But thanks again for contributing.” Indeed, she is just a mouthpiece for the views the political and media elites want us to hold.)

In any case, Schultz’s article merely reveals the desperation of the ruling class and the self-appointed opinion-shapers. They can call those of us who wish to defend the people and culture of Europe and North America “far-right” and “extreme” every day (and they do), but the public can see with their eyes what is happening. Wilders’ popularity isn’t growing because he is a charming fellow. It’s growing because he speaks the truths that the political and media elites are in a frenzy to obscure. And it’s only going to get worse for them: the Brexit vote and the Trump candidacy (whether he wins or loses) shows that their hegemony is beginning to be challenged. Those challenges will continue, and grow. They will before too long be decisively voted out and repudiated.

teri-schultz74

“Far-right Wilders skips hate speech trial in Amsterdam,” by Teri Schultz, DW, November 1, 2016:

On Monday, the far-right leader Geert Wilders refused to show up for his trial on charges of hate speech and incitement of violence for comments he made against ethnic Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Instead, Wilders let his legal representatives repeat the views that caused the charges to be brought against him: that the country has a “mega Moroccan problem” and that too many Moroccans get welfare benefits and commit crimes. Wilders believes that he has said “nothing wrong” as he is just vocalizing the views of his constituents….

But while judges ponder the legality of Wilders’ views their popularity grows, as evidenced by Wilders’ showing in the polls and the growth of populist, anti-immigrant parties across Europe, such as the far-right Alternative for Germany. In a world where US Republican Party nominee Donald Trump campaigns on building a wall on the US-Mexican border and a plan to block Muslims from coming to the United States, controversial commentators such Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org, promote Wilders’ perspective. Known for extreme anti-Islam views, Spencer said Wilders’ comments are not out of line.

“Moroccans don’t have some natural right to immigrate to the Netherlands any more than anyone does to anywhere,” Spencer told DW. “And so if someone expresses an opinion saying they would like to slow the rate or stop that immigration, there is nothing ipso facto hateful about that.”

Moroccans make up approximately 2 percent of the Dutch population. Asked how Wilders could consider that as excessive, Spencer said the concern centers more on the growth rate than the actual number of inhabitants at the moment.

Spencer also said since Wilders himself has shown no tendency toward violence – though the court is considering whether he’s encouraging that outcome – the greater “danger to society” would be for Wilders’ remarks to be deemed illegal hate speech.

But European Parliament lawmaker Cecile Kyenge doesn’t think remarks like Wilders’ can be explained away like that. “There has been a constant stream of concerning comments from politicians across Europe,” she said, “that fall short of the responsibilities they have as public figures and opinion leaders. In recent months, politicians have disseminated false information and engaged in hate speech against minorities for political gain. Actions such as these are all the more damaging when they are propagated by politicians.”…

Though Wilders has been acquitted on hate-speech allegations before, Spencer doesn’t necessarily think he’ll be found not guilty again, because Spencer said the ruling elite is afraid of losing power to him. “I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if he were convicted this time and if they don’t convict him this time, they’ll convict him next time. But eventually,” he predicted, “they might have a situation where they’re convicting the sitting prime minister.”

The New Anti-Racist Racists

October 28, 2016

The New Anti-Racist Racists, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, October 28, 2016

There is a trait campaigning groups have that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more.

Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons.

One got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

Here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black immigrant woman. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

The SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), based in Montgomery, Alabama, has struck again. The self-appointed boundary-markers and policemen of free discussion have issued what they call a “Field Guide” to help “guide” the media in “countering prominent anti-Muslim extremists.” It is hard to know where to start with such idiocy, so let us start from the beginning.

The SPLC was founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights among other good causes. By the end of its first decade it was targeting the KKK and other racist organisations. So far so good. But like many a campaigning organisation, they experienced the happy blow of basically winning their argument. By the 1990s, there were mercifully few racist groups in America going about unchallenged. When a member of the KKK cropped up everybody in civil society pretty much understood that here was a bad person who should not be given a free pass.

But there is an odd trait in campaigning groups that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Why is this so? Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more. Campaigning for a particular thing or against a particular thing has become their way of life and their means of earning. And so they find a way to continue. For some years, the SPLC staggered around in such a manner, as pointless and purposeless an organisation as could be imagined.

And then in the last decade something happened to this increasingly obscure institution. It is not for me to speculate why or how this happened, whether it had to do with new staff or new money, but the focus of the organisation changed. Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. They did not spy it in people who flew planes into skyscrapers, decapitated American journalists and aid workers or blew up the finish line of marathons. No, the SPLC saw it somewhere else. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons. For the SPLC, the big threat on the horizon was not Islamists but those people who objected to Islamists — that is, people they called “Islamophobes.” In the same way, they did not seem to have any particular problem with jihad, but they developed a huge problem with people they called “counter-jihadists.” To their existing lists of designated “hate-groups” they now added such people.

More honest groups might have balked at such a stance. More informed groups would have walked a thousand miles from such a stance. But the SPLC did no such thing. In fact, one got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

The media today in America are increasingly wary of Islamic extremists. Most journalists do not want the parameters of what should be discussed dictated by Islamic fanatics. Whereas an organisation such as the SPLC, which did something good forty years ago, is the sort of institution that the media is for the time-being happy to hear from. Perhaps after this latest development that will no longer be the case.

The SPLC’s latest production is disgraceful, discrediting and sloppy even by its own increasingly disgraceful, discredited and sloppy standards. For this publication, they have listed “Fifteen anti-Muslim activists,” most likely in the hope that they will scare the media off inviting them on, or the wider public from being allowed to listen to them.

Among the list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC lists a set of allegedly outrageous things that she has said, which have appeared in such obscure and extreme venues as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They mention in passing — as though it were an incidental mishap — that Hirsi Ali’s film-making partner, Theo van Gogh, was slaughtered on an Amsterdam street by a jihadist, with a death-threat to Hirsi Ali pinned into van Gogh’s dying body. But they still clearly cannot imagine why anybody would have a problem with such a thing. One wonders how the staff of the SPLC would feel if one of their colleagues was murdered in such a manner? Doubtless they would shrug it off. Yet it remains that case that here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking a black immigrant woman.

Hirsi Ali is of course well known for being an ex-Muslim. But the SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim. Of course, if Maajid Nawaz were an Islamic extremist then SPLC would have nothing to say about him. But Maajid Nawaz is not an extremist — he is one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself. If the jihadists within Islam are ever going to be defeated, it will be because of Muslims like Nawaz, who are willing to argue for reform on liberal, progressive, pluralistic and democratic grounds.

Yet for the SPLC, this Muslim is not just not the right type of Muslim — he is “anti-Muslim.” The charges that SPLC levels against Nawaz are (this is not satire) that he has (a) co-operated with, rather than worked against, the British police (b) suggested that customers in banks should have to show their faces (c) once failed to abide by the most hardline interpretation of Islamic blasphemy law (d) once visited a strip club on his stag-night.

2001The Southern Poverty Law Center decided to turn itself into a racist organization, with its attacks on principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Who knows what lapses in personal decorum have occurred among the staff of the SPLC? Perhaps one of them once had extra-marital intercourse? Or perhaps one of them once consumed a glass of Merlot, in contravention of the hardest-line interpretations of Islamic scripture? Who knows, but who the hell would anybody else be to judge, and who the hell do the SPLC think they are? It seems that the SPLC has decided to turn itself from an anti-racist organisation into a racist one. An organisation that used to prosecute white racists has ended up attacking black and Muslim immigrants. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

Trudeau on anniversary of Ottawa jihad attack: “Diversity makes our country strong”

October 24, 2016

Trudeau on anniversary of Ottawa jihad attack: “Diversity makes our country strong” Jihad Watch

The reality beneath Trudeau’s adulation of diversity is like a festering sore; his misplaced praise diverts attention away from the grave threat of jihadi infiltration and its threat to homeland security, and undermines the real heroes who stopped the jihadists on that fateful day at the Canadian Parliament.

Most worrisome is that prior to carrying out their attacks both perpetrators were known to Canadian law enforcement authorities. In fact, Rouleau was included in the list of 90 Canadian nationals considered at ‘high risk’ for possible involvement in terrorist activities; yet at the time not considered sufficiently serious to warrant tighter surveillance of his activities, surveillance that might have prevented his attack.

The anniversary of the jihadist attack on Canadian Parliament is no occasion to applaud diversity. The West has allowed an indiscriminate form of “diversity,” Islamic supremacism, to undermine democracy and terrorize Western citizens.

The heroic act of Canadian Parliament’s head of security, sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers, saved the day.  Vickers risked his life to take down Michael Zehaf-Bibeau in a “dramatic hail of gunfire,” right after Zehaf-Bibeau — an Islamic convert who had joined the Islamic State — shot dead a Canadian soldier. Vickers even “changed my impression of Canada,” according to Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of the far-Left political website Talking Points Memo, which “decreed” Vickers  “Lord High Badass of Canada.”

The humble Canadian hero received global, deserved accolades;  one was in the Israeli Parliament, where he stated: “This is not about me. This is about the team of Commons security services.” He went on:

Safety is community based.

This is not an issue just for security, this is everybody’s issue and how we deal with this is by everybody, all the citizens, working together with their local police, their national police to ensure we have a safe society.

Vickers’ message of everyone working together to ensure the safety of society is important; sincere democracy-supporting Muslims should be at the forefront of facilitating such efforts, not shouting “Islamophobia.”

Israel is a most suitable place for Vickers to have been honored, as it was under jihadist attack long before the modern jihadist incursion into the West. We also know that Israel is a very diverse country, from which Trudeau can take lessons as Prime Minister of a multicultural state; beginning with the facts that Raffa Abu Tareef, a Druze writer, researcher and 25-year veteran of the Israel Defense Forces, points out:

Islamism is a movement that regards the sovereign Jewish state as an existential battle between Islam and Judaism…..

the movement has fostered the “Islamization” of the geography and history of the Land of Israel. In an attempt to provide a framework for dealing with what it sees as the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, Islamists have rewritten the history of the Land of Israel.

Islamic supremacism – through lies about victimhood and “Islamophobia” — has made deep inroads into Europe under the cover of “diversity,” and is well on its way in North America to doing the same, a territory that is perceived by Islamic supremacists as “dar al Harb” (House of War) that must be subjugated under “dar al Islam” (House of Islam). It is a similar premise to the “Islamization” of geography that Tareef describes, in which Western countries are deemed “colonialist victimizers,” a term that corresponds to “the Zionist entity”; but jihadists conceal their own history of bloody conquest, modern day abuses and ongoing slavery of blacks by Muslim Arabs. There is no respect for “diversity” or pluralism in the vocabulary of the Islamic supremacists who have infiltrated us.

As Trudeau denies this reality, he continues to smile and indiscriminately worship “diversity,” even on an inappropriate occasion.

justin-trudeau-4-photo-cijnews

“Trudeau says reaction to Ottawa attack shows that diversity ‘makes our country strong’”, by Jonathan Halevi, CiJ News, October 22, 2016:

Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued on Saturday, October 22, 2016, a statement on the two-year anniversary of the attack at the Cenotaph and Parliament Hill with no word on the perpetrator’s motive and ideological affiliation. Trudeau described the attack as “brutal”, “vicious” and “deadly” emphasizing that “Canada will not be intimidated by hatred and violence.”

He further said that the reaction to the attack demonstrated yet again that “diversity and collective love of democracy are what make our country strong and our nation great.”

The following is Trudeau’s statement:

“Two years ago, Canadians were shocked by the brutal attack that took place in and around Parliament that claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and injured others.

“This vicious attack, at the very heart of our democracy, sought to frighten and divide Canadians. Instead it had the exact opposite effect, drawing us closer together and making us stronger. In the wake of this deadly assault, parliamentarians and Canadians united in condemning terrorism and further embracing our diversity.

“The whole country honoured first responders – Senate and House of Commons Protective Services, the RCMP, former House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, medical personnel and others – for their bravery and their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way for Canadians of all backgrounds and faiths.

“It showed the world that Canada will not be intimidated by hatred and violence, but will meet these acts with strength and conviction. This also showed me yet again that our diversity and collective love of democracy are what make our country strong and our nation great.

“I join all Canadians today in mourning the loss of Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent – who was killed two days earlier in an attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec.

“These two members of the Canadian Armed Forces made the ultimate sacrifice for the country they loved. The most fitting tribute that we can pay them is defending the values that they so personified.”

On October 20, 2014 , Martin Ahmad Couture-Rouleau, a convert to Islam, deliberately drove into two Canadian Forces soldiers in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, near Montreal, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent before he was shot dead after a police chase. Faisal, his Facebook friend, told CBC that Couture-Rouleau was a supporter of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, IS, Deash, Caliphate). He posted on a Facebook page that was allegedly affiliated with him the black flags of the Islamic State. Months before the attack, the Police was aware of Couture-Rouleau’s radical statements on social media and arrested him in July 2014 foiling his plan to board a plane to Turkey, probably in his way to Syria. To watch CBC report on Martin Ahmad Couture-Rouleau click HERE.

On October 22, 2014, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, Canadian born and a convert to Islam, shot dead a soldier and was killed after opening fire inside the Parliament in Ottawa. Zehaf-Bibeau saw himself as a “mujahid”, meaning a fighter in the path of Allah, and said that “Canada’s officially become one of our [Muslim mujahideen] enemies.”

A Short time before he went to the attack at Parliament Hill, Zehaf-Bibeau recorded his last message to the world in which he told his motives:

“In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful. All praises to Allah, the lord of the universe. We seek his help and ask for his forgiveness. Lord, open for me my chest, ease my task for me and remove the impediment from my speech. In the name of Allah the most gracious and the most merciful.

“To those who are involved and listen to this movie, this is in retaliation for Afghanistan and because Harper wants to send his troops to Iraq.

“So we are retaliating, the Mujahedin of this world. Canada’s officially become one of our enemies by fighting and bombing us and creating a lot of terror in our countries and killing us and killing our innocents. So, just aiming to hit some soldiers just to show that you’re not even safe in your own land, and you gotta be careful.

“So, may Allah accept from us. It’s a disgrace you guys have forgotten God and have you let every indecency and things running your land. We don’t, we don’t go for this. We are good people, righteous people, believers of God and believing his law and his Prophets, peace be upon them all….