Archive for the ‘No go zones’ category

Islam in the Heart of England and France

April 23, 2017

Islam in the Heart of England and France, Gatestone InstituteDenis MacEoin, April 23, 2017

For many years, the British government has fawned on its Muslim population; evidently the government thought that Muslims would in due course integrate, assimilate, and become fully British, as earlier immigrants had done. More than one survey, however, has shown that the younger generations are even more fundamentalist than their parents and grandparents, who came directly from Muslim countries.

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

“There are plenty of private Muslim schools and madrasas in this city. They pretend that they all preach tolerance, love and peace, but that isn’t true. Behind their walls, they force-feed us with repetitive verses of the Qur’an, about hate and intolerance.” — Ali, an 18-year-old of French origin, whose father was radicalized.

“In England, they are free to speak. They speak only of prohibitions, they impose on one their rigid vision of Islam but, on the other hand, they listen to no-one, most of all those who disagree with them.” — Yasmina, speaking of extremist Muslims in the UK.

“Birmingham is worse than Molenbeek” — the Brussels borough that The Guardian described as “becoming known as Europe’s jihadi central.” — French commentator, republishing an article by Rachida Samouri.

The city of Birmingham in the West Midlands, the heart of England, the place where the Industrial Revolution began, the second city of the UK and the eighth-largest in Europe, today is Britain’s most dangerous city. With a large and growing Muslim population, five of its electoral wards have the highest levels of radicalization and terrorism in the country.

In February, French journalist Rachida Samouri published an article in the Parisian daily Le Figaro, in which she recounted her experiences during a visit there. In “Birmingham à l’heure islamiste” (“Birmingham in the Time of Islam”) she describes her unease with the growing dislocation between normative British values and those of the several Islamic enclaves. She mentions the Small Heath quarter, where nearly 95% of the population is Muslim, where little girls wear veils; most of the men wear beards, and women wear jilbabs and niqabs to cover their bodies and faces. Market stalls close for the hours of prayer; the shops display Islamic clothes and the bookshops are all religious. Women she interviewed condemned France as a dictatorship based on secularism (laïcité), which they said they regarded as “a pretext for attacking Muslims”. They also said that they approved of the UK because it allowed them to wear a full veil.

Another young woman, Yasmina, explained that, although she may go out to a club at night, during the day she is forced to wear a veil and an abaya [full body covering]. She then goes on to speak of the extremists:

“In England, they are free to speak. They speak only of prohibitions, they impose on one their rigid vision of Islam but, on the other hand, they listen to no-one, most of all those who disagree with them.”

Speaking of the state schools, Samouri describes “an Islamization of education unthinkable in our [French] secular republic”. Later, she interviews Ali, an 18-year-old of French origin, whose father has become radicalized. Ali talks about his experience of Islamic education:

“There are plenty of private Muslim schools and madrasas in this city. They pretend that they all preach tolerance, love and peace, but that isn’t true. Behind their walls, they force-feed us with repetitive verses of the Qur’an, about hate and intolerance.”

Samouri cites Ali on the iron discipline imposed on him, the brutality used, the punishment for refusing to learn the Qur’an by heart without understanding a word of it, or for admitting he has a girlfriend.

Elsewhere, Samouri notes young Muslim preachers for whom “Shari’a law remains the only safety for the soul and the only code of law to which we must refer”. She interviews members of a Shari’a “court” before speaking with Gina Khan, an ex-Muslim who belongs to the anti-Shari’a organization One Law for All. According to Samouri, Khan — a secular feminist — considers the tribunals “a pretext for keeping women under pressure and a means for the religious fundamentalists to extend their influence within the community”.

Another teenager of French origin explains how his father prefers Birmingham to France because “one can wear the veil without any problem and one can find schools where boys and girls do not mix”. “Birmingham,” says Mobin, “is a little like a Muslim country. We are among ourselves, we do not mix. It’s hard”.

Samouri herself finds this contrast between secular France and Muslim England disturbing. She sums it up thus:

“A state within a state, or rather a rampant Islamization of one part of society — [is] something which France has succeeded in holding off for now, even if its secularist model is starting to be put to the test”.

Another French commentator, republishing Samouri’s article, writes, “Birmingham is worse than Molenbeek” — the Brussels borough that The Guardian described as “becoming known as Europe’s jihadi central.”

The comparison with Molenbeek may be somewhat exaggerated. What is perplexing is that French writers should focus on a British city when, in truth, the situation in France — despite its secularism — is in some ways far worse than in the UK. Recent authors have commented on France’s growing love for Islam and its increasing weakness in the face of Islamist criminality. This weakness has been framed by a politically-correct desire to stress a multiculturalist policy at the expense of taking Muslim extremists and fundamentalist organizations at face value and with zero tolerance for their anti-Western rhetoric and actions. The result? Jihadist attacks in France have been among the worst in history. It is calculated that the country has some some 751 no-go zones (“zones urbaines sensibles”), places where extreme violence breaks out from time to time and where the police, firefighters, and other public agents dare not enter for fear of provoking further violence.

Many national authorities and much of the media deny that such enclaves exist, but as the Norwegian expert Fjordman has recently explained:

If you say that there are some areas where even the police are afraid to go, where the country’s normal, secular laws barely apply, then it is indisputable that such areas now exist in several Western European countries. France is one of the hardest hit: it has a large population of Arab and African immigrants, including millions of Muslims.

There are no such zones in the UK, certainly not at that level. There are Muslim enclaves in several cities where a non-Muslim may not be welcome; places that resemble Pakistan or Bangladesh more than England. But none of these is a no-go zone in the French, German or Swedish sense — places where the police, ambulances, and fire brigades are attacked if they enter, and where the only way in (to fight a fire, for example) is under armed escort.

Samouri opens her article with a bold-type paragraph stating:

“In the working-class quarters of the second city of England, the sectarian lifestyle of the Islamists increasingly imposes itself and threatens to blow up a society which has fallen victim to its multicultural utopia”.

Has she seen something British commentators have missed?

The Molenbeek comparison may not be entirely exaggerated. In a 1000-page report, “Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offences and Attacks in the UK (1998-2015),” written by the respected analyst Hannah Stuart for Britain’s Henry Jackson Society, Birmingham is named more than once as Britain’s leading source of terrorism. [1]

One conclusion that stands out is that terror convictions have apparently doubled in the past five years. Worse, the number of offenders not previously known to the authorities has increased sharply. Women’s involvement in terrorism, although still less than men’s, “has trebled over the same period”. Alarmingly, “Proportionally, offences involving beheadings or stabbings (planned or otherwise) increased eleven-fold across the time periods, from 4% to 44%.” (p. xi)

Only 10% of the attacks are committed by “lone wolves”; almost 80% were affiliated with, inspired by or linked to extremist networks — with 25% linked to al-Muhajiroun alone. As the report points out, that organization (which went under various names) was once defended by some Whitehall officials — a clear indication of governmental naivety.

Omar Bakri Muhammed, who co-founded the British Islamist organization al-Muhajiroun, admitted in a 2013 television interview that he and co-founder Anjem Choudary sent western jihadists to fight in many different countries. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

A more important conclusion, however, is that a clear link is shown between highly-segregated Muslim areas and terrorism. As the Times report on the Henry Jackson Society review points out, this link “was previously denied by many”. On the one hand:

Nearly half of all British Muslims live in neighbourhoods where Muslims form less than a fifth of the population. However, a disproportionately low number of Islamist terrorists — 38% — come from such neighbourhoods. The city of Leicester, which has a sizeable but well-integrated Muslim population, has bred only two terrorists in the past 19 years.

But on the other hand:

Only 14% of British Muslims live in neighbourhoods that are more than 60% Muslim. However, the report finds, 24% of all Islamist terrorists come from these neighbourhoods. Birmingham, which has both a large and a highly segregated Muslim population, is perhaps the key example of the phenomenon.

The report continues:

Just five of Britain’s 9,500 council wards — all in Birmingham — account for 26 convicted terrorists, a tenth of the national total. The wards — Springfield, Sparkbrook, Hodge Hill, Washwood Heath and Bordesley Green — contain sizeable areas where the vast majority of the population is Muslim.

Birmingham as a whole, with 234,000 Muslims across its 40 council wards, had 39 convicted terrorists. That is many more than its Muslim population would suggest, and more than West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire put together, even though their combined Muslim population is about 650,000, nearly three times that of Birmingham. There are pockets of high segregation in the north of England but they are much smaller than in Birmingham.

The greatest single number of convicted terrorists, 117, comes from London, but are much more widely spread across that city than in Birmingham and their numbers are roughly proportionate to the capital’s million-strong Muslim community.

Hannah Stuart, the study’s author, has observed that her work has raised “difficult questions about how extremism takes root in deprived communities, many of which have high levels of segregation. Much more needs to be done to challenge extremism and promote pluralism and inclusivity on the ground.”

Many observers say Birmingham has failed that test:

“It is a really strange situation,” said Matt Bennett, the opposition spokesman for education on the council. “You have this closed community which is cut off from the rest of the city in lots of ways. The leadership of the council doesn’t particularly wish to engage directly with Asian people — what they like to do is have a conversation with one person who they think can ‘deliver’ their support.”

Clearly, lack of integration is, not surprisingly, the root of a growing problem. This is the central theme of Dame Louise Casey’s important report of last December to the British government. Carried out under instructions of David Cameron, prime minister at the time, “The Casey Review: A review into opportunity and integration” identifies some Muslim communities (essentially those formed by Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants and their offspring) as the most resistant to integration within British society. Such communities do little or nothing to encourage their children to join in non-Muslim education, events, or activities; many of their women speak no English and play no role within wider society, and large numbers say they prefer Islamic shari’a law to British law.

Casey makes particular reference to the infamous Trojan Horse plot, uncovered in 2014, in which Muslim radicals conspired to introduce fundamentalist Salafi doctrines and practices into a range of Birmingham schools — not just private Muslim faith schools but regular state schools (pp. 114 ff.): “a number of schools in Birmingham had been taken over to ensure they were run on strict Islamic principles…”

It is important to note that these were not ‘Muslim’ or ‘faith’ schools. [Former British counterterrorism chief] Peter Clarke, in his July 2014 report said:

“I took particular note of the fact that the schools where it is alleged that this has happened are state non-faith schools…”

He highlighted a range of inappropriate behaviour across the schools, such as irregularities in employment practices, bullying, intimidation, changes to the curriculum, inappropriate proselytizing in non-faith schools, unequal treatment and segregation. Specific examples included:

  • a teachers’ social media discussion called the “Park View Brotherhood”, in which homophobic, extremist and sectarian views were aired at Park View Academy and others;
  • teachers using anti-Western messages in assemblies, saying that White people would never have Muslim children’s interests at heart;
  • the introduction of Friday Prayers in non-faith state schools, and pressure on staff and students to attend. In one school, a public address system was installed to call pupils to prayer, with a member of the staff shouting at students who were in the playground, not attending prayer, and embarrassing some girls when attention was drawn to them because girls who are menstruating are not allowed to attend prayer; and
  • senior staff calling students and staff who do not attend prayers ‘k****r’. (Kuffar, the plural of kafir, an insulting term for “unbelievers”. This affront reproduces the Salafi technique of condemning moderate or reformist Muslims as non-Muslims who may then be killed for being apostates.)

Casey then quotes Clarke’s conclusion:

“There has been co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham. This has been achieved in a number of schools by gaining influence on the governing bodies, installing sympathetic headteachers or senior members of staff, appointing like-minded people to key positions, and seeking to remove head teachers they do not feel sufficiently compliant.”

The situation, Casey states, although improved from 2014, remains unstable. She quotes Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, in a letter to the Secretary of State for Education, which declared as late as July 8, 2016, that the situation “remains fragile”, with:

  • a minority of people in the community who are still intent on destabilising these schools;
  • a lack of co-ordinated support for the schools in developing good practice;
  • a culture of fear in which teachers operate having gone underground but still there;
  • overt intimidation from some elements within the local community;
  • organised resistance to the personal, social and health education (PSHE) curriculum and the promotion of equality.

Elsewhere, Casey notes two further issues in Birmingham alone, which shed light on the city’s Muslim population. Birmingham has the largest number of women who are non-proficient in English (p. 96) and the largest number of mosques (161) in the UK (p. 125).

For many years, the British government has fawned on its Muslim population; evidently the government thought that Muslims would in due course integrate, assimilate, and become fully British, as earlier immigrants had done. More than one survey, however, has shown that the younger generations are even more fundamentalist than their parents and grandparents, who came directly from Muslim countries. The younger generations were born in Britain but at a time when extremist Islam has been growing internationally, notably in countries with which British Muslim families have close connections. Not only that, but a plethora of fundamentalist preachers keep on passing through British Muslim enclaves. These preachers freely lecture in mosques and Islamic centres to youth organizations, and on college and university campuses.

Finally, it might be worth noting that Khalid Masood, a convert to Islam who killed four and injured many more during his attack outside the Houses of Parliament in March, had been living in Birmingham before he set out to wage jihad in Britain’s capital.

It is time for some hard thinking about the ways in which modern British tolerance of the intolerant and its embrace of a wished-for, peace-loving multiculturalism have furthered this regression. Birmingham is probably the place to start.

________________

[1] Hard copies of the report may be purchased via PayPal here. Essays, summaries etc. may be linked to from here. An excellent summary by Soeren Kern is available online here.

Paris Becomes Massive Camp for Illegal Migrants

June 6, 2016

Paris Becomes Massive Camp for Illegal Migrants, Gatestone Institute,Soeren Kern, June 6, 2016

♦ The National Front party has accused Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo of putting the concerns of migrants ahead of those of French citizens. In a statement, the party said that the number of homeless people in Paris had increased by 84% between 2002 and 2012, but that Hidalgo has shown little interest in alleviating the problem.

♦ Although the EU-Turkey migrant deal has temporarily stemmed the flow of illegal migration to Greece through Turkey, hundreds of thousands of migrants are still making their way into Europe.

♦ According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 204,000 migrants arrived in Europe (mostly Greece and Italy) during the first five months of 2016, more than twice as many as arrived during the same period in 2015.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has announced plans to build a “humanitarian camp” next to one of the busiest train stations in the city, so that thousands of illegal migrants bound for Britain can “live with dignity.”

Hidalgo, who has often sparred with French President François Hollande for his refusal to accept more migrants, says her plan to help illegal migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East is a “duty of humanism.”

Critics counter that Hidalgo’s plan is a cynical ploy aimed at positioning herself to the left of the current president, as part of a political strategy to wrest leadership of the Socialist Party from Hollande, whose approval ratings are at record lows.

At a press conference on May 31, Hidalgo said the camp would be built in northern Paris “near the arrival points for migrants.” She was referring to Gare du Nord — one of the busiest railway stations in Europe — from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London.

Thousands of illegal migrants, many from Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, have gathered at a nearby public park, the Jardins d’Eole, and turned the area into a massive squatter camp where conditions are squalid. The area, which is so dangerous that the government has classified it as a no-go zone (Zone de sécurité prioritaires, ZSP), has become a magnet for human traffickers who charge migrants thousands of euros for fake travel documents, for passage to London.

Hidalgo said her new camp, which will be built within six weeks, would be modelled on Grande-Synthe, a massive migrant camp near the French port city of Dunkirk.

Grande-Synthe, which is home to more than 2,500 illegal migrants hoping to reach Britain, was opened in February 2016 after French authorities destroyed a makeshift camp in nearby Calais known as the “Jungle,” from where thousands of migrants tried to break into the Channel Tunnel in a bid to reach London.

The upkeep of Grande-Synthe will cost French taxpayers €4 million ($4.5 million) this year, in addition to a stipend of €10 euros a day for every migrant at the camp. French taxpayers presumably will also be paying for Hidalgo’s camp in Paris.

1641Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has announced plans to build a camp for thousands of illegal migrants in central Paris, which is to be modelled on Grande-Synthe (pictured above), a camp housing 2,500 illegal migrants near the French port city of Dunkirk. (Image source: AFP video screenshot)

Hidalgo, who has threatened to file a lawsuit against the American media outlet Fox News for reporting about Muslim no-go zones in Paris, seems to have no qualms about turning parts of northern Paris into ghettos for illegal migrants. “Paris will not avoid taking responsibility while the Mediterranean becomes a graveyard for refugees,” she said. “I do not want to look at myself in the mirror in 10 or 15 years and say: ‘You were mayor of Paris and you are guilty of not helping people in danger.'”

Hidalgo added that “Europe and France are not living up to their history when they fail to treat outsiders with dignity.”

Hidalgo’s project has been welcomed by some, including pro-migration charity groups, and has infuriated others, such as French Housing Minister Emmanuelle Cosse. She said there already are enough refugee shelters in Paris and that Hidalgo’s announcement would only serve to draw more illegal migrants to the city.

In an interview with Europe 1 radio, Cosse said that “migrant camps are not the solution” because they amount to the establishment of migrant ghettos where integration becomes impossible. Cosse said that more than 1,000 additional illegal migrants had arrived at the Jardins d’Eole in the week since Hidalgo’s press conference, bringing the total number of migrants there to 2,300.

A political analysis by the center-right Le Figaro postulates that Hidalgo’s plan for a migrant camp is just the latest in a series of provocations in which she is attempting to establish her left-wing credentials as part of a strategy to win leadership of the Socialist Party. The report says she believes President Hollande will lose his bid for reelection in 2017, and that his defeat will pave the way for a leadership battle between Hidalgo and French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. According to Le Figaro, Hidalgo is determined to become the Socialist Party candidate for President of France in 2022.

A report by the French public radio channel France Inter describes the rivalry between Hidalgo and Valls as “war unto death.”

Hidalgo’s quest to become the first female president of France may be derailed by the head of the anti-immigration National Front party, Marine Le Pen, who is now one of the most popular politicians in France.

According to an opinion poll published by Le Monde on June 1, 28% of those surveyed said they would vote for Le Pen in 2017, compared to 21% for former president Nicolas Sarkozy and 14% for Hollande. The poll also shows that on a scale of 1 to 10, Hollande’s approval rating is at 2.1.

The National Front party has accused Hidalgo of putting the concerns of migrants ahead of those of French citizens. In a statement, the party said that the number of homeless people in Paris had increased by 84% between 2002 and 2012, but that Hidalgo has shown little interest in alleviating the problem:

“It is absolutely scandalous that Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo uses taxpayer money to house illegal migrants. Migrants should not be housed in hotels or in modular homes within migrant camps. They should be in detention camps waiting to be taken back to their country of origin.

“Anne Hidalgo’s project is characteristic of a political class that is more concerned with migrants than citizens, a political class that has forgotten that the main role of leaders is to care above all for their own people first.”

Meanwhile, efforts by French police to tear down makeshift migrant camps have become like a game of whack-a-mole. More than 20 camps have been dismantled in Paris over the past 12 months, but each time they are rebuilt within weeks.

On May 2, police cleared a makeshift migrant camp under the Stalingrad Metro station (near Gare du Nord) after thousands of migrants brandishing metal poles and wooden planks engaged in a mass brawl on April 14. (A four-minute YouTube video of the melee can be viewed here.) The camp had previously been cleared on March 30.

Although the EU-Turkey migrant deal has temporarily stemmed the flow of illegal migration to Greece through Turkey, hundreds of thousands of migrants are still making their way into Europe.

According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 204,000 migrants arrived in Europe (mostly Greece and Italy) during the first five months of 2016, more than twice as many as arrived during the same period in 2015.

Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities

March 31, 2016

Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, March 31, 2016

(Here’s a link to an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson titled The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration. — DM)

sanctuary-cities

In the wake of the terror attacks in Belgium, news reports once again focused on how so-called “No Go Zones” in Europe create neighborhoods where communities develop that, although are geographically located within major cities, insulate themselves from their surroundings, fostering the mindset that cooperating with law enforcement is dangerous and even traitorous.

The residents eye law enforcement officers with great suspicion if not outright animosity. The situation is exacerbated because while they fear law enforcement, they may well also fear their neighbors who may take revenge against them for cooperating with law enforcement.

These neighborhoods become “cultural islands” that eschew the cultures and values of the cities and countries in which they grow — a virtual malignancy that ultimately comes to threaten its host city and country because within this cocoon radical Islamists are shielded from law enforcement, find shelter and support and an ample supply of potential terror recruits.

These communities are inhabited by many Muslim refugees who cannot be effectively screened.

This makes assimilation by the residents of these isolated communities unlikely if not impossible and creates breeding grounds for crime and, in this era and under these circumstances- breeding grounds for terrorism.

While there are no actual “No Go Zones” in the United States, there are neighborhoods scattered around the United States, where the concentration of ethnic immigrant minorities is so great that police find themselves unable to make the sort of inroads that they should be able to make in order to effectively police these communities. Adding to the high density of these aliens in these communities is the issue of foreign languages often being the prevalent language in such “ghettos.” This gives new meaning to the term “Language Barrier.”

Back when I was an INS agent, we had an expression- “Big cases- big problems; Little cases- little problems; No cases- no problems!” That phrase applies to all law enforcement officers.

When police or other law enforcement officers are put into a classic “no win” situation, their commonsense solution is to make their own survival and well-being their priority by minimizing their contacts with such enclaves and taking the fewest actions possible within those communities.

Not unlike the “No Go Zones” of European countries, these communities in the Unites States also tend to shield foreign nationals who may be fugitives from justice both inside the United States and in other countries. Terrorists and their supporters are able to go about their daily lives- undetected by law enforcement agencies.

Implementation of sanctuary policies in such cities greatly exacerbates the threats posed to national security and public safety- turning those cities into magnets that attract still more radicals and fugitives and terrorists who need to “fly under the radar.”

Any community that provides safe haven for illegal aliens willfully endangers the lives of it residents.

Even as concerns about increased threats of terror attacks are the topic of a succession of Congressional hearings, so-called “Sanctuary Cities” continue to flourish- with the tacit approval of the administration even though they are clearly operating in violation of federal law.

Consider these provisions of Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses:

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

I focused on this threat to public safety and national security in my article for The Social Contract’s Winter, 2016 Edition, “Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.”

My January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine article, “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat” took a hard look at how failures of the immigration system enable terrorists to enter the United States and, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities across the country.

Incredibly, New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio, not content to simply continue the dangerous- indeed deadly sanctuary policies, has amped up the threats to New York and New Yorkers- and indeed the United States, by issuing “Municipal Identity Documents” to illegal aliens.

Reportedly hundreds of thousands of individuals have been issued these identity documents that provide a host of benefits to those to whom the cards have been issued.

Criminals, fugitives and terrorists use multiple false identities. It is therefore beyond comprehension how any mayor would be willing to provide municipal identity documents to illegal aliens. It is especially confounding that New York City’s mayor would do this, given that New York City suffered the greatest number of fatalities on September 11, 2001.

De Blasio is certainly cognizant that NYC is a major terror target. On February 17, 2016 he joined Senator Chuck Schumer, the architect of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, in preparing a letter in response to the administration’s proposal to cut counter-terrorism funding in half. A copy of the letter was posted on the official NYC website under the title, “Transcript: Mayor de Blasio and U.S. Senator Schumer Call on White House to Fully Restore Critical Anti-Terror Funds.”

The Observer’s March 15, 2016 report, “De Blasio Makes Bipartisan Push to Reverse Obama Terror Cuts” focused on De Blasio’s appearance before a Congressional hearing in which he made an impassioned plea to have the funds reinstated.

If Mr. De Blasio is really that concerned about the threat of terrorism, perhaps he (and Senator Schumer) should read the 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, “9/11 and Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.

In their travels, terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas, specific travel methods and routes, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, supportive travel agencies, and immigration and identity fraud.

Page 9 of 9/11 and Terrorist Travel reported:

The 19 hijackers used 364 aliases, including different spellings of their names and noms de guerre.4 As they passed through various countries, their names were recorded by governments and their intelligence and border authorities.”

Providing official identity documents to illegal aliens, whose true identities are unknown and unknowable, enables them to create new false identities and a level of credibility they are easily able to exploit as an embedding tactic. Criminals and terrorists use changes in identity the way that chameleons use changes in coloration- as camouflage that enables them to hide in plain sight, often among their intended victims.

Donald Trump has recommended that the United States, at least temporarily, bar Muslims from entering the United States.

In my judgement this solution is not realistic. While the President can order a ban on the admission of all foreign Muslims, it would be impossible to implement. Terrorists and others who were determined to enter the United States could simply lie about their religious beliefs. Aliens who enter the United States without inspection are not screened. We already have large numbers of Muslims living in the United States.

The First Amendment provides for freedom of religion and understandably, many Americans are repulsed at the thought of making religious distinctions where the admission of aliens is concerned.

A far better solution would be to beef up the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and focus a major component of the enforcement effort on seeking to locate and apprehend illegal aliens, irrespective of religion, from countries associated with terrorism.

My December 20, 2015 article for Californians for Population Stabilization, “Effective Interior Enforcement of Immigration Law Vital to Nat’l Security” expounded on how national security would be greatly enhanced by not only securing our borders but enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

Much has been made of the need to develop effective intelligence. What is seldom, if ever, discussed is the role of informants. In my assignment to the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA and then when I was assigned to the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force, one of my key responsibilities was to use my authority as an INS agent to cultivate informants.

Aliens who would be arrested would, under certain circumstances, be provided with the opportunity to become informants and cooperating witnesses to identify those aliens who are engaged in terror-related activities, thereby providing invaluable intelligence. Those who cooperated could be permitted to remain in the United States and even possibly, granted lawful status provided that they could be effectively vetted and that their assistance was particularly meritorious and yielded significant results.

Deporting those illegal aliens who could not- or would not cooperate would shrink the size of the haystack in which some very deadly needles are hiding.

Either way, our security would be greatly enhanced.

Russian Magazine: Russia’s Air Force In Syria Is Winning The Battle For Assad

February 17, 2016

Russian Magazine: Russia’s Air Force In Syria Is Winning The Battle For Assad, MEMRI, February 17, 2016

(Please see also, Moscow on the Tigris: Russia Joins the Terror Nexus:

While an exhausted and burned out United States wishes international migraines like the Syrian civil war would just go away, Russia is energized by the prospect of filling the vacuum and thus once again playing a major role on the world stage. Aggressively intervening on behalf of his ally in Damascus, President Bashar al-Assad, and projecting force well beyond even the frontier states in his“near abroad,” Vladimir Putin audaciously aims to change political outcomes in a region that has been out of his country’s sphere of influence for a generation.

— DM)

Recently, the Russian campaign in Syria reached its 100th day. An article in Expert Online, the website of the influential Russian analytical magazine Expert, reviews the state of the Syria war, analyzing the activities on various fronts as well as the Russian involvement. The article, by journalist Pyetr Skorobogatyj, states that, with Russia’s help, the Syrian army is advancing slowly but surely. It stresses that the operation in Syria is not a substantial financial burden for Russia, and that it benefits Russia in many ways – including by allowing it to train pilots, test the performance of various weapons, and target Russian-speaking militants who are fighting in Syria. Most significantly, it allows Russia to establish a permanent presence in the Middle East that has an impact on all the region’s countries.

The article then reviews the military situation in Syria region by region. Focusing first on the north, it stresses that the Kurdish forces there are making headway against ISIS and are laying down the foundations for what may eventually become a Kurdish autonomy or even an independent Kurdish state. The main loser, says the article, is Turkey, who is powerless to stop these developments from unfolding.

The article states further that Russia, using its S-400 missiles, has effectively set up a no-fly-zone in the north of Syria, thus enabling the regime forces to make substantial achievements against the rebels, especially in the Latakia area. It adds that the U.S., too, is planning to establish a military base in northeast Syria, in the Malikia area.

Moving to the southern region, the article states that the stalemate between the sides there – namely the regime forces and rebel groups backed by Jordan – has ended, since Jordan has ordered these forces to stop attacking Assad’s troops. In Damascus, too, the regime is slowly flushing out the rebels, street by street and building by building. As for eastern Syria, the article concedes that ISIS still maintains a strong presence there and will be difficult to defeat.

The following are excerpts from the article.[1]

 “The Air Campaign Is Not Expensive For Moscow, And It Allows Russia To Train Pilots And Test Different Types Of Weapons”

“As the Russian campaign recently reached its 100th day,[2] [Russia’s] main goal appears to be the use of military power to force peace on the ‘rational’ [i.e., non-jihadist] rebel groups. There are a number of small [rebel] groups which have either joined Assad’s military or have stayed independent but coordinate their activities with the Syrian army. [Russia’s] largest partner [apart from the Syrian army] is the Syrian Democratic Army [SDA], a Sunni popular militia which is fighting in the north [of the country] alongside the Kurds and government troops. The Russian Ministry of Defense has confirmed that Russia supports the SDA with weapons, ammunition and airstrikes. ‘For its part, the patriotic opposition [i.e. the SDA] coordinates its military objectives with the Russian aviation group,’ noted Lt. General Sergei Rudskoy, Chief of Main Operations Management in the Russian Army General Staff…

“The joint military campaign of the Russian Air Force and Syrian troops seems to be [progressing] slowly but surely. [The slow pace] is due to the broad spectrum of military goals which must be met, including pressure on all ‘factions’ in order to separate [potential] ‘partners’ from ‘enemies,’ as well as the necessity to return as much territory as possible to the Syrian government’s control, in order to enable it to negotiate from a position of strength about the country’s future. In addition, all the battle fronts seem chaotic, with many parallel ‘seething cauldrons’… and with weather conditions are getting worse… All of these factors together make Russian air operations difficult, especially during the winter period. This week the ‘bad guys’ [i.e. ISIS] used the cover of a sandstorm [which hampered Russian air activity] to mount a major offensive on Deir Al-Zor, a Syrian enclave in the desert. This action resulted in a major defeat for the Syrian side. As prevailing weather conditions worsen, the… intensity of the military campaign will decrease…

“Notwithstanding, during the first 100 days of Russian Air Force and Navy operations, 217 villages and towns were retaken, and 1000 sq. km. of territory. The Russian-Syrian coalition has no need to hurry. The air campaign is not expensive for Moscow, and it allows Russia to train pilots and to test the battle performance of different types of weapons. These benefits are in addition to the political gains and to the main goal, which is to eliminate Russian-speaking fighters in theaters far away from Russia’s borders.

“In addition, thanks to the new Russian air force base in the [the Syrian city of] Latakia, Moscow has established a permanent presence in the region, controlling a very important logistic hub. This modern military base (equipped with Iskander[3] and S-400[4] missiles)… changes the military and political situation in Iraq, Iran, Israel, the U.S… and, of course, Turkey”…”

“Russia Has Set Up A No-Fly Zone Using Its S-400 Surface-To-Air Missile System”

“[Meanwhile] the goals of the main participants in the Syrian battle have become clear. In the north of Syria… the Kurds are winning. They are finally receiving extensive military support from the U.S. and covert support from Russia. They are carrying out offensive operations against ISIS and expanding their territory, which might become a future Kurdish state or an autonomous region within Syria, depending on the final agreement… The main loser is Turkey, who is unpredictable, irresponsible and unable to keep agreements. Currently, [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan can only look on as the Kurdish enclave continually grows stronger. [The Turkish President] can initiate military operations only on his own territory…

“The geopolitical value of northern Syria is understood by all parties. Russia has set up a no-fly zone [there] using its S-400 surface-to-air missile system… [while] Syria is strengthening its Al-Bab air base with Russian military advisors and the S-300[5] missile system. The Americans are not napping either, and plan to set up a military base in Malikia in north-east Syria… This will allow the U.S to carry out an independent policy without having to depend on the Kurdish state which is being established…

“The Syrian army, aided by Hizbullah’s brigades, is doing very well in the Latakia governorate. The map [below] clearly shows the movement of the fighting forces over the last few months. The dotted red line represents the front on October 7, 2015. In the first half of January 2016, government troops finally showed fighting ability against the Islamist stronghold of Salma… It was the first time that Russian military experts actively took part in the campaign, probably coordinating the attack on Salma. Support from Russian planes in the northern Latakia province allows the Syrian army to continue its advance at full speed…”

26798Military situation in Latakia and Hama areas, January 21, 2016

In The South, Jordan-Backed Rebels Have Been Ordered To Stop Attacking; In Damascus, The Government Is Flushing Out Islamists; In The East, ISIS Still Holds A Significant Area

“In the Dera province in the south, the opposing sides had [previously] agreed to maintain the status quo. Damascus was avoiding a conflict with Israel as well as with Jordan, which openly sponsored tribal forces and Islamist brigades… [Today, however,] the tactic of constant pressure [by Syrian regime troops on these forces and brigades] is producing results. The Military Operations Command [MOC] in Amman… which is coordinating rebel activities in southern Syria, has ordered [the forces it sponsors] to stop attacking [Syrian] government forces… Jordan’s logic is very simple… Syrian refugees in Jordan now total about 30% of the population, the same number as the Palestinians living in Jordan… so Jordan prefers to try to stabilize the situation in Syria rather than dream about cutting off Syria’s southern territories from the rest of the country. On the other hand, Damascus has begun to raise the issue of Israeli[-sponsored] rebels occupying the [Syrian] Golan Heights.

“In the Syrian capital, government troops are continuing to flush out Islamists and ‘bad guys’ from the city. The score is being kept not by counting streets retaken, but by counting buildings… The progress in the Damascus area is noticeable only when viewed over a long period of time. Below is a map showing the balance of forces in 2013, and beneath it a map showing the balance of forces in 2015.

26799Damascus area in 2013
26800Damascus’ area in 2015

“In addition, peace talks between the government and some rebel groups are now underway. Just recently, an agreement was made with a rebel brigade in the Al-Qadam suburb [in Damascus]. Some militants who were disarmed were moved to Raqqa and Idlib, while almost 1,500 others agreed to switch to Assad’s side…

“In spite of the relative success of government troops, ISIS still holds a significant area in the eastern part of Syria… The [ISIS] Caliphate is well-entrenched in the area it controls, with a strong force and command structure, and is not going to withdraw easily.”

 

Endnotes:

[1] Expert.ru, January, 22, 2016.

[2] The Russian campaign in Syria started on September 30, 2015.

[3] A Russia-manufactured portable short-range ballistic missile system; NATO designation name: SS-26 Stone.

[4] A Russia-manufactured anti-aircraft weapons system; NATO designation name: SA-21 Growler.

[5] A Russia-manufactured long range surface-to-air missile system;  NATO designation name: SA-10 Grumble.

The danger of partial no-go zones

December 29, 2015

The danger of partial no-go zones, Washington Times, Daniel Pipes, December 28, 2015

12282015_b1pipeslgnogo8201_c0-232-2200-1514_s885x516

Partial no-go zones in majority-Muslim areas are a part of the urban landscape from the Mediterranean to the Baltic, with the French government alone counting 751 of them. This shirking of responsibility foreshadows catastrophe and calls for immediate reversal.

I call the bad parts of Europe’s cities partial no-go zones because ordinary people in ordinary clothing at ordinary times can enter and leave them without trouble. But they are no-go zones in the sense that representatives of the state — police especially, but also firefighters, meter-readers, ambulance attendants and social workers — can only enter with massed power for temporary periods of time. If they disobey this basic rule (as I learned first-hand in Marseille), they are likely to be swarmed, insulted, threatened and even attacked.

This situation needs not exist. Host societies can say no to the poor, crime-ridden, violent and rebellious areas emerging in their midst. But if governments need not abdicate control, why do they do so? Because of a fervent, slightly desperate hope to avoid confrontation. Multicultural policies offer the illusion of sidestepping anything that might be construed as “racist” or “Islamophobic.”

This abandonment is no minor aberration but a decision with grave consequences — consequences far deeper than, say, not controlling a crime-ridden American city like East St. Louis. That’s because Muslim quasi-no-go zones fit into a far larger political context, with dual Western and Islamic dimensions.

Western: Avoiding confrontation reflects a deep-seated ambivalence about the value of one’s own civilization and even self-hatred of the white race. The French intellectual Pascal Bruckner noted in his 2006 book “La Tyrannie de la Penitence” (“The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism”) that leftist thinking “can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter’s hypocrisy, violence, and abomination.” Europeans preen as “the sick man of the planet” whose greed and false notions of superiority causes every problem in the non-Western world: “The white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone.”

If the deadly triad of imperialism, fascism and racism represent all that the West has to offer, no wonder immigrants to Europe, including Islamists, are treated as superior beings due supine deference. They exploit this by acting badly — drug dealers ruling the roost, a gang raping 1,400 children over a period of 16 years, and promoting violent ideologies — with near-impunity because, after all, the Europeans have only themselves to blame.

Muslim: Partial no-go zones also result from an Islamic drive for exclusion and domination. Mecca and Medina constitute the official, sovereign and eternal Muslim-only zones. For nearly 14 centuries, these two Arabian cities have been formally off-limits to kafirs, who trespass at their peril; a lively literature of non-Muslims who penetrated their holy precincts and lived to tell the tale goes back centuries and continues still today.

Other Islamic no-go zones also exist. Before losing power in 1887, the Muslim rulers of Harar, Somalia, for centuries insisted (in the words of a British officer) on the “the exclusion of all travellers not of the Moslem faith.” In like spirit, women in hijabs scream at non-Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to make them feel unwelcome and so stay away. In the West, lawful Muslim-only enclaves represent one drive for Muslim autonomy and sovereignty; the Muslims of America organization, with its 15 or so no-go compounds bristling with arms and hostility on private property dotted around the United States, represents another.

Unlike places like East St. Louis, Muslim-majority partial no-go zones have a deeply political and highly ambitious quality to them. Indeed, it is not farfetched to foresee them turning into Muslim autonomous zones applying Islamic law and challenging the authorities. The mix of feeble European governments and a strong Islamic drive for power points to future unrest, crises, breakdown and even civil war.

Some believe it is already too late to avoid this fate. I disagree, but if catastrophe is to be avoided, the job to dismantle all partial no-go zones must be started soon and executed with a swift determination based on a renewed sense of self-worth. Two universal principles should guide European governments: attaining a monopoly of force and applying the same code of law to all citizens.

Domestic peace in Europe and perhaps other regions, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, demands nothing less.

Iranian Thugs Defend Their Favorite Fishing Spot

May 11, 2015

Iran claims its warships ‘shooed’ US, French forces in Gulf of Aden
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 10, 2015, 6:37 pm


(The message here is twofold. The U.S. Navy will dictate the time and place for confrontation with the Iranian Navy. The U.S. Navy adheres to the wisdom that one should choose their battles wisely. – LS)

Iran claimed Sunday that its warships had “shooed away” American and French military forces in the Gulf of Aden.

US and French “reconnaissance planes, helicopters and warships approached the Iranian warships in a provocative move” on Saturday night, the semi-official FARS news agency reported. “The vessels and aircraft then received a warning from Iranian Destroyer ‘Alborz,’ apologized and rapidly changed direction.”

The agency said the same thing happened last Monday, when “a US warship and military planes changed their direction as they were patrolling in the Gulf of Aden after they came close to an Iranian naval fleet and were warned to move away.”

The report said the Iranian Navy’s 34th fleet, comprising the Alborz destroyer and Bushehr helicopter-carrier warship, is conducting three months of “anti-piracy patrols” in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. It quoted the flotilla’s commander, Mostafa Tajeddini, saying, “Checking foreign warships in the international waters and surveillance of potential threats to Iran’s national interests is our essential responsibility.”

The report came amid a spate of belligerent anti-US rhetoric by Iranian leaders and military chiefs, and as US President Barack Obama seeks to reassure Gulf leaders unnerved by the emerging US-backed nuclear deal with Iran. Obama is holding a summit at Camp David on Thursday with Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

Two top Iranian generals on Thursday had taunted the United States, saying the much-discussed military option to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities is “ridiculous,” that Washington knows it can’t be done, and that their country “welcomes war with the US.”

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, said in an interview on state-run television that a battle with the US would only serve to highlight Iran’s strengths.

“We welcome war with the US as we do believe that it will be the scene for our success to display the real potentials of our power,” he said, according to a report by the semi-official Fars news agency. “We have prepared ourselves for the most dangerous scenarios and this is no big deal.”

Salami threatened that Iran would strike any airbase used as a launchpad for a strike on his country.

“We warn their pilots that their first flight [to attack Iran] will be their last one and no one will be allowed to go back safe and sound,” he warned.

The commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, gave a similarly belligerent warning during a ceremony in the city of Semnan, in the north of the country. Jafari reasoned that if the West really thought it could attack Iran at will, it would have done so already; instead world powers “kneel” before Iranian might, he boasted.

“The military option that the Westerners speak of constantly is ridiculous and they know that if the military option could have produced any result, they would have already used it many times, and today they have shifted their focus to other types of threats and to the soft war front,” Jafri said.

“Today, the Islamic Iran’s pride and might has made the world’s biggest materialistic and military powers kneel down before the Islamic Republic,” he proclaimed.

Iranian officials have recently ramped up their war of rhetoric in what local media said is a response to threats by US officials to bomb their country.

Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei bragged Wednesday that the US “can’t do a damn thing” to harm his country’s nuclear facilities.

Negotiations between Iran and six world powers — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — are scheduled to resume on May 12 in Vienna, the European Union and Tehran said last week. The political leaders of the other world powers involved in the negotiations are to join the talks on May 15.

Iran and the world powers want to turn a framework accord reached in Switzerland on April 2 into a full agreement by June 30.

Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have harshly criticized the framework agreement, saying it paves the way to Iranian nuclear weapons.

Video: Iranian Vessels Heading Closer To U.S. Ships

April 23, 2015

(Nothing really earthshaking here. Just an interesting look at the present situation off the coast of Yemen. Eventually, Iranian ships will make a mad dash for the coast to offload their weapons shipment. What Obama does to stop it, if at all, is anyone’s guess. – LS)

Susan Rice: Netanyahu Visit ‘Destructive’ To U.S.-Israel Relationship

February 25, 2015

Susan Rice: Netanyahu Visit ‘Destructive’ To U.S.-Israel Relationship
The Huffington Post By Paige Lavender 02/25/2015 8:56 am EST


(Two things to remember when reading this article…first, if it suits the Democrats, it’s a bipartisan issue and second, it’s considered political suicide to meet with or be seen with President Obama before election time. The Democrats are especially cognizant of that fact as evidenced in the last election. – LS)

Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech in front of a joint session of Congress will be “destructive” to U.S.-Israel relations.

“What has happened over the last several weeks, by virtue of the invitation that was issued by the Speaker [John Boehner] and the acceptance of it by Prime Minister Netanyahu two weeks in advance of his election, is that on both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship,” Rice told PBS’ Charlie Rose.

(Last time I looked, the legislative branch of the US government is equal to the executive branch, as is the judicial. So why can they not invite heads of state to speak? – LS)

“It’s always been bipartisan,” Rice added. “We need to keep it that way. We want it that way. I think Israel wants it that way. The American people want it that way. When it becomes injected or infused with politics, that’s a problem.”

(Our little friend Pinocchio would be having serious nasal problems about now. – LS)

Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu ahead of his speech in March, saying it would be “inappropriate” to meet with the leader two weeks before the Israeli elections. Netanyahu was invited to speak in front of a joint session of Congress by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who did not seek approval from the White House before sending the invitation.

(When has Obama asked Boehner’s approval for anything? – LS)

Several lawmakers have spoken out against the speech, saying it could cause additional strain on international talks over Iran’s nuclear plans. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called Netanyahu’s speech “a tawdry and high-handed stunt” in a statement earlier this month.

(Well, there you go. Israel’s leader is tawdry and high-handed. Electing someone like this is almost as bad as electing Obama….well maybe not. – LS)

What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

January 24, 2015

What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t, National Review on lineAndrew C. McCarthy, January 24, 2015

(This is the best post I have read thus far on “no go zones” and their significance to civilized societies. — DM)

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

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

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact that sharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academic analyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. SheikhQaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has been crystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on “Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

John Bolton on WMAL 1-22-15

January 23, 2015

John Bolton on WMAL 1-22-15, via You Tube, January 22, 2015

(Audio only. Amb. Bolton speaks of PM Netanyahu’s address to Congress, no-go zones and Obama’s fantasies about Islamic terrorism, the Islamic State and Iran. — DM)