Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists

Posted July 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Law enforcement

Tags: , , , ,

Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, July 24, 2016

♦ “I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany. … I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets. … I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits. ” – Germany’s axe-attacker, in an Islamic State video.

♦ “Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid. If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.” – Rainer Wendt, Chairman of the German Police Union.

♦ The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.

A 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker brandishing an axe and shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest”) seriously injured five people on a train in Würzburg, Bavaria. The assailant was shot dead by police after he charged at them with the axe.

The teenager, who had claimed asylum after arriving in Germany in June 2015 as an unaccompanied minor, had been placed with a foster family just two weeks before the attack as a reward for being “well integrated.”

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said police had found a hand-painted Islamic State flag in his room at his foster home in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt. They also found a farewell letter to his father which read: “Now pray for me so that I can take revenge on these infidels. Pray for me that I can get to paradise.”

Shortly after the attack, the Islamic State released a video purporting to show an Afghan asylum seeker holding a knife and making threats against Germany:

“In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany.

“Here I am. I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.

“I will make you forget about the spectacular attacks in France, if Allah permits.

“I will fight to the death, if Allah permits. I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits.”

In the video, the Islamic State identified the attacker as Muhammad Riyad, who can be heard speaking Pashto, a language spoken in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. But German media identified the attacker as Riaz Khan Ahmadzai. The discrepancy raised questions about the teenager’s true identity.

Police found a Pakistani document in the teenager’s room, leading some to believe he may have lied about being from Afghanistan in order to improve his chances of securing asylum. German authorities generally classify migrants from Pakistan as economic migrants and those from Afghanistan as refugees. But Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said there is no reason to doubt that the attacker was indeed from Afghanistan.

There are also unresolved questions about the teenager’s ties to the Islamic State. Herrmann, the Bavarian interior minister, said the video is authentic: “The man in the video is the Würzburg attacker.” The federal prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe said it believed “the attacker committed the offense as a member of the Islamic State.”

1708Left: The 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker who seriously injured five people on a train in Germany, while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” is shown in an Islamic State video saying, “In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany… I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.” Right: The attacker’s body is removed from the place where police shot him, after he charged at them with the axe.

By contrast, De Maizière said the attacker was a self-radicalized “lone wolf” who had been incited by Islamic State propaganda. The public prosecutor in Bamberg, Erik Ohlenschlager, said “We have no evidence that he was in direct contact with the Islamic State.”

After the blood-filled train — an eyewitness said it “looked like a slaughterhouse” — came to a stop at a station in Heidingsfeld near Würzburg, the teenager jumped off and tried to escape. Surrounded by police, he lunged at them with an axe. Police shot the attacker dead because “there was no other option.”

Green Party MP Renate Künast criticized the police for using lethal force. In a tweet, she wrote: “Why could the attacker not have been incapacitated without killing him???? Questions!”

Künast’s comments provoked a furious backlash, with many accusing her of showing more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victims. The outpouring of anger against Künast indicates that Germans have had enough of their politically correct politicians.

The chairman of the German police union, Rainer Wendt, said:

“The final rescue shot is clearly regulated by law. The policemen were attacked and used their firearm to defend against an immediate danger to life and limb. That is their statutory duty. The Green MP Renate Künast has absolutely no idea about reality of dangerous police actions.”

Speaking on N24 television, Wendt added:

“Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid.

“If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.”

The head of the police union in Bavaria, Peter Schall, said: “If a police officer is not allowed to shoot in such situations, he might as well stop carrying a weapon.”

Mike Mohring, a politician with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), called for stiffer penalties for those who attack police officers. He said attacks against police are on the rise across Germany and “the only effective deterrent is that the law provides an appropriate penalty.” He also said German police should be outfitted with body cameras to protect both the police and the public.

Bavarian Justice Minister Winfried Bausback called on Künast to resign: “Anyone who publicly suspects police in such a situation without any knowledge of the matter — as Künast has done in her tweet — is unacceptable as chairman of the parliamentary legal committee.”

Green leader Cem Özdemir distanced himself from Künast:

“I did not understand what she wrote there. It is always a good idea to think about what you are writing before you send a tweet. What are police officers supposed to do if they are attacked? They protected others and they protected themselves. Her view is not the position of my party.”

Andreas Scheuer, the general secretary of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, said Künast’s comments were “perverse.” He added: “The CSU’s policy is: protection of victims takes priority over protection of perpetrators.”

German commentator Klaus Kelle wrote:

“Our police in Germany do an excellent job and are hardly ever thanked for it. They are poorly paid … and repeatedly are whipping boys for errors of policy. Endless overtime, violent attacks, even in harmless situations such as illegal parking, is part of everyday life for our sons and daughters, who serve all of us.

“Where are the politicians who support our policemen, rather than those who mindlessly criticize them, as now? Ms. Künast, does the presumption of innocence apply to police officers in this country?”

The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.

Wrong and rude on Iran and Israel

Posted July 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, AIPAC, Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton, Iran scam, Israel, Leftists, Tim Kaine

Tags: , , , , ,

Wrong and rude on Iran and Israel, Israel Hayom Richard Baehr, July 24, 2016

(Please see also, Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties. — DM)

The Democrats are out selling Tim Kaine as a solid citizen, experienced politician, and a great choice for vice president on the Hillary Clinton ticket — someone who could step in quickly as president if needed. The traditional pro-Israel community, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are undoubtedly preparing to signal their comfort with him as a Clinton running mate, much as they did with the supposedly pro-Israel Barack Obama, twice. Kaine has voted in favor of foreign aid; he has traveled to Israel; he voted in favor of funding some weapons systems for Israel; he has raised a lot of money from liberal Jews (running for governor, senator, and head of the Democratic National Committee). Therefore, he must be a great supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. So great in fact, that he was happy to take money from the J Street political action committee and accept its endorsement when he ran for Senate. AIPAC, J Street, Kaine, all one big happy family in the pro-Israel club.

Of course, on the Iran nuclear deal, the single most important foreign policy decision since the vote on the Iraq war in 2002, Kaine was not only wrong, but extraordinarily disrespectful to Israel’s prime minister. He chose to boycott Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress on the issue in early 2015, saying that he thought Netanyahu’s aim was mainly to help himself with his own domestic politics in the Israeli elections, held two weeks later.

“There is no reason to schedule this speech [on March 3] before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17 and choose their own leadership,” Kaine said in a statement, after describing how he’d worked to delay the event. “I am disappointed that, as of now, the speech has not been postponed. For this reason, I will not attend the speech.”

Let us assume for a moment that Netanyahu had two goals in mind for his speech — to make the case for healthy skepticism and opposition within Congress toward the Iran nuclear deal, which was near completion at the time, and help himself politically. This must have come as a shock to Kaine. Imagine a leader concerned both about the security of his country and his own political future. Good thing such considerations never entered the mind of any American president. Certainly Obama must never have allowed domestic political considerations to influence his policymaking or the timing of his decisions. The attempt to bury the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, presenting it as an event caused by some anti-Muslim message by some obscure American filmmaker was quickly adopted by all the administration spinners — from Susan Rice to then-Secretary of State Clinton. This spin was necessary for Obama to continue running for re-election on the campaign theme he had developed — the fact that he killed Osama bin Laden and saved General Motors. Blaming the filmmaker was of course complete and total nonsense.

And of course, Obama’s recent warning that Britain would be at “the back of the queue” to negotiate a trade agreement with the U.S. if it voted to leave the European Union, was not in any way an act of interference in another country’s politics — the kind of interference that might have drawn Kaine’s ire.

Kaine was one of only eight senators who boycotted Netanyahu’s speech. The others included both Vermont senators, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, two of the least supportive members of Congress when it comes to Israel. Sanders of course pushed for a new policy on Israel during his campaign for the Democratic nomination this year, and brought up the need for balance in terms of support for Israel and the Palestinians in the Brooklyn debate with Clinton, where his enthusiastic supporters went wild when he chastised Israel and its prime minister. At the moment, this sentiment is where the heart of the Democratic Party lies — on the hard left and hostile toward Israel. Two others who boycotted were Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — two of the most passionate leftists in Congress.

One would not expect to find Kaine siding with Vermont’s two near Marxist senators and the most left-wing members of the House in boycotting Netanyahu. But then again, two Democratic senators who happen to be Jewish — Al Franken and Brian Schatz — also boycotted.

There must have been conversations between the administration and Democratic congressional leaders to ensure a decent sized boycott (in total about 20% of congressional Democrats boycotted the speech), and to provide enough names on the boycott list to protect possible future Democratic national figures, meaning, of course, Kaine.

Kaine is the very definition of a career politician. He served on the city council, then as mayor of Richmond, then as governor of Virginia, then as head of the Democratic National Committee and finally as senator. In 2008, he was on Obama’s short list for vice president. If he were to move up to the only positions he has not yet held — vice president and ultimately president, then his actions on Iran in 2015 might well be seen as a signal to movement Democrats — party activists — that he is not a predictable centrist but is capable of turning leftward on Israel.

This meant diverging from AIPAC, which at this point is a low-risk move since the organization seems never to lose the love regardless of members’ behavior or votes. Has AIPAC punished any Democrat for leading the charge, or applying pressure on other Democrats in the House or Senate, on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?

In fact, for someone who started his political career as something of a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, Kaine seems to have understood that he needed move leftward on these issues to have a chance at a national future. Republicans are attacked for their disunity, which is real. Democrats enforce their orthodoxy. Kaine’s voting record is 100% liberal on most scorecards, and despite this, some progressives consider him too moderate.

When the JCPOA came up for a vote in Congress, Kaine made up his mind quickly — in the first two weeks . One would have to be pretty gullible to think the senator had carefully weighed the pros and cons of the agreement before deciding.

Kaine’s announced support for the JCPOA likely made it easier for others to also buck AIPAC and support the president. Most remarkably, Kaine voted twice to support a filibuster in the Senate, so that a vote could not even be recorded on the JCPOA. It turns out that 58 senators opposed the agreement (all 54 Republicans, and 4 Democrats), but 60 votes were needed to force a vote in the Senate.

Obama did not want a vote, since he then would have been forced to veto the formal congressional opposition to the agreement since the House had already passed its opposition resolution. Kaine had been a co-sponsor of the Corker bill, therefore it is remarkable cynicism that he was not even willing to allow fellow senators to vote to formally express their opposition to the bill he co-sponsored.

If Kaine becomes vice president, he can be expected to do what is necessary to ensure he has a shot at the final step up the political ladder. Being pro-Israel won’t have much to do with it.

CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )

Posted July 24, 2016 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags:

 

Published on Jul 23, 2016
Philly Blunt

**PLEASE SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA EVERYWHERE**

-Download Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Vs…

-Backup Download Link: http://en.savefrom.net/#url=http://yo…

Clinton Cash, is a feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book that the New York Times hailed as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.”

Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as US Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

 

Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Hamas, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Hillary Clinton's VP pick, Islamist moral values, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Senator Tim Kaine

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, July 23, 2016

VP islamistPresumptive Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton with her choice for vice-president Tim Kaine.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s newly-announced running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, has a history of embracing Islamists. He appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission; spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect and received donations from well-known Islamist groups.

 

Appointing a Muslim Brotherhood Front Leader Who Supports Hamas

In 2007, Kaine was the Governor of Virginia and, of all people chose Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish to the state’s Immigration Commission. A Muslim organization against Islamism criticized the appointment and reckless lack of vetting.

Federal prosecutors said in a 2008 court filing that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” A Chicago Tribune investigation in 2004 confirmed this, as well as MAS’ crafty use of deceptive semantics to appear moderate. Convicted terrorist and admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member Abdurrahman Alamoudi testified in 2012, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Read our fully-documented profile of MAS here.

According to Omeish’s website, he was also president of the National Muslim Students Association (click there to read our profile about its Muslim Brotherhood origins) and served for two years on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which the Justice Department also labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial.

His website says he was the vice president of Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a radical mosque known for its history of terror ties, including having future Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki as its imam and being frequented by two of the 9/11 hijackers and Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood shooting. Omeish’s website says he remains a board member.

Omeish’s website also says he was chairman of the board of Islamic American University, which had Hamas financier and Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Al-Qaradawi chairman of its board until at least 2006.

Omeish was also chairman of the board for the Islamic Center of Passaic County, a New Jersey mosque with heavy terrorist ties and an imam that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport for having links to Hamas.

Omeish directly expressed extremism before Kaine appointed him. He claimed the Brotherhood is “moderate” and admitted that he and MAS are influenced by the Islamist movement.

In 2004, Omeish praised the Hamas spiritual leader as “our belovedSheikh Ahmed Yassin.” Videotape from 2000 also surfaced where Omeish pledged to help Palestinians who understand “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land” (he denied this was an endorsement of violence).

When a state delegate wrote a letter to then-Governor Kaine warning him that the MAS has “questionable origins,” a Kaine spokesperson said the charge was bigotry.

Kaine obviously failed to do any kind of basic background checking in Omeish.

Omeish resigned under heavy pressure, and Kaine acknowledged that his statements “concerned” him. But, apparently, they didn’t concern him enough to actually learn about the Muslim Brotherhood network in his state and to take greater precautions in the future.

Speaking at a Dinner Honoring Muslim Brotherhood Terror Suspect

In September 2011, Kaine spoke at a “Candidates Night” dinner organized by the New Dominion PAC that presented a Lifetime Achievement Award for Jamal Barzinji, who the Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch describes as a “founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

He first came on to the FBI’s radar in 1987-1988 when an informant inside the Brotherhood identified Barzinji and his associated groups as being part of a network of Brotherhood fronts to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The source said Barzinji and his colleagues were “organizing political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government” using “political action front groups with no traceable ties.”

Barzinji had his home searched as part of a terrorism investigation in 2003. U.S. Customs Service Senior Special Agent David Kane said in a sworn affidavit that Barzinji and the network of entities he led were investigated because he “is not only closed associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]…but also with Hamas.”  Counter-terrorism reporter Patrick Poole broke the story that Barzinji was nearly prosecuted but the Obama Justice Department dropped plans for indictment.

Barzinji played a major role in nearly every Brotherhood front in the U.S. and was vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which came under terrorism investigation also. Barzinji’s group was so close to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian that IIIT’s President considered his group and Al-Arian’s to be essentially one entity.

The indictment of Al-Arian and his colleagues says that they “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights (emphasis mine).”

The quotes about Brotherhood operative Barzinji’s aspirations to use civil rights advocacy as a means to influence politicians are especially relevant when you consider that video from the event honoring Barzinji shows Kaine saying that it was his fourth time at the annual dinner and thanked his “friends” that organized it for helping him in his campaign for lieutenant-governor and governor and asked them to help his Senate campaign.

Islamist Financial Support

Barzinji’s organization, IIIT, donated $10,000 in 2011 to the New Dominion PAC, the organization that held the event honoring Barzinji that Kaine spoke at. The Barzinji-tied New Dominion PAC donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign between 2003 and 2005. That figure doesn’t even include other political recipients that assisted Kaine’s campaign.

The PAC has very strong ties to the Democratic Party in Virginia, with the Virginia Public Access Project tallying almost $257,000 in donations. This likely explains why Barzinji’s grandson served in Governor McAuliffe’s administration and then became the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Muslim-American community.

The Middle East Forum’s Islamist Money in Politics database shows another $4,300 donated to Kaine’s Senate campaign in 2011-2012 by officials from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another $3,500 came from Hisham Al-Talib, a leader from Barzinji’s IIIT organization.

It’s worth noting that Barzinji’s IIIT donated $3,500 to Esam Omeish’s 2009 campaign delegate campaign, tying together the cadre of Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders who got into Kaine’s orbit.

Conclusion

Kaine has no excuse. If he has an Internet connection, then he and his staff should have known about their backgrounds. They were either extremely careless (something Kaine would have in common with the top of the ticket) or knew and looked the other way in the hopes of earning donations and votes.

Clinton’s choice of Kaine is widely seen as a way of strengthening her campaign’s national security credentials. Yet, Clinton is asking us to trust a candidate on national security who appoints a Hamas supporter to an immigration commission and speaks at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect.

And she is asking us to trust her, who chose such a candidate.

Obama administration mum as Turkey’s post-coup crackdown expands

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Erdogan, European Union, Turkey and human rights, Turkey and Islamic State, Turkey's failed coup

Tags: , , , ,

Obama administration mum as Turkey’s post-coup crackdown expands, Fox News, Christiana Licata, July 23, 2016

Turkey festersVan Hipp: Turkey had been festering, but Obama admin asleep

The Obama administration’s relative silence on Turkey’s alarming crackdown following last week’s failed coup attempt is tantamount to a green light for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to continue his assault on democracy in the NATO nation, experts said.

Questioned about Erdogan’s ongoing roundup of some 50,000 academics, judges, teachers, soldiers and civil servants, and the declaration Wednesday of a state of emergency, a State Department official earlier this week meekly warned against “overreach.”

“I cannot overstate the sense of the Turkish government and the Turkish people right now that they truly felt and truly feel under threat,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told an Associated Press reporter at a department briefing. “We support completely the efforts to bring the perpetrators of the coup to justice. We just also caution against any kind of overreach that goes beyond that.”

But when pressed, Toner declined to characterize the arrest, firing or suspension of the tens of thousands of Turkish government workers as “overreach.”

Erdogan’s government, which blames U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen for inciting the coup attempt, in which more than 200 people were killed and members of the military briefly commandeered tanks, aircraft and communications channels, has reacted with a vengeance.

The state of emergency gives Erdogan and his cabinet new powers to implement laws without parliamentary approval. It also allows Ankara to censor media broadcasts, search citizens, impose curfews and restrict gatherings both public and private.

Erdogan has simultaneously demanded the U.S. hand over Gulen, a onetime Erdogan ally who lives in a Pennsylvania mountain compound and runs a profitable chain of Islamic charter schools. Secretary of State John Kerry has said the department is considering the request, but it remains unclear what evidence Erdogan’s administration has provided.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the crackdown shows Erdogan is taking advantage of the failed coup to further strengthen his grip on power. The strongman, who has ruled Turkey as either president or prime minister since 2001, has been steadily stripping the long proudly secular nation of its constitutional freedoms and increasingly adopted Islamist rhetoric.

“When he was mayor of Istanbul 20 years ago, he said democracy is like a street car — you ride it to the stop you want and then you get off,” Bolton said of Erdogan. “This will enable him to pursue his objective of Islamisizing the Turkish government and overturning the secular constitution. That’s what’s underway. I don’t think there’s much question about it.”

Bolton said that the Obama administration appears to have done “very little” to pressure Turkey to ease up on its people, either publicly or behind the scenes. That gives Erdogan all the encouragement he needs, Bolton said.

“The situation will continue to deteriorate as Erdogan arrests more people and puts them in jail,” he said.

The European Union has more aggressively sought to rein in the crackdown, with two EU officials warning Thursday that Turkey’s declaration of a state of emergency had led to “unacceptable decisions on the education system, judiciary and the media.”

“We call on Turkish authorities to respect under any circumstances the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right of all individuals concerned to a fair trial,” EU high representative Federica Mogherini and commissioner Johannes Hahn said in a statement.

Ahmet Yayla, who was chairman of the sociology department at Harran University and a former police chief in Turkey, said many of those being rounded up in Turkey include the Muslim nation’s bulwark against terrorism.  Police, soldiers and judges deemed disloyal to Erdogan have been detained, leaving a diminished human infrastructure to deal with security threats, he said.

“Those are the people who were fighting against terrorism in Turkey,” said Yayla, who fled to the U.S.  eight months ago when ISIS threatened his life for interrogating terrorist defectors.

Yayla said Erdogan’s dangerous dance with ISIS – tacitly supporting the terror group and allowing foreign fighters to pass through Turkey on their way to the terrorist army’s caliphate – could combine with the post-coup unrest to threaten the nation’s stability.

“In the near future, Turkey will face a lot of danger coming from terrorism because the newly appointed officers in the military and police are not going to be able to fight or deal with terrorism threats that exist in the country, especially by Erdogan’s allowing the terrorists inside the country,” he said.

 

Emails Show Democratic National Committee Officials Actively Undermined Sanders And Sought To Guarantee Clinton’s Nomination

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Bernie Sanders, Democrat National Committee, Hillary Clinton

Tags: ,

Emails Show Democratic National Committee Officials Actively Undermined Sanders And Sought To Guarantee Clinton’s Nomination, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, July 23, 2016

(It must be just another vast right-wing conspiracy. — DM)

Wasserwoman

For months, critics and candidates have been publicly denouncing what they view as open favoritism of the Democratic National Committee (and particularly DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) toward Hillary Clinton. Even DNC members have objected to the role of the DNC and the view that it is trying to guarantee that Clinton is the nominee. Despite fairly universal criticism of the favoritism showed Clinton (and opposition showed Sanders), Wasserman Shultz and DNC officials publicly denounced any such suggestions of working against Sanders. Now, with the Wikileaks postings, various emails prove that the DNC has been actively working to undermine Sanders and advance their chosen candidate of Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks posted an email from Mark Paustenbach, the Democratic Party’s national press secretary & deputy communications director, to other staffers discussing how they could create an anti-Sanders narrative that portrays his campaign in disarray and not an acceptable option for voters.

 

Brutal: What Trump Just Released on Obama is Going Viral
Could You Replace All Your Wedges With One Club?
“Erase” Your Eye Bags & Wrinkles In Just 1 Minute!
Sponsored by Revcontent
“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess. . .

“Specifically, DWS had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they’d either ignored or forgotten to something critical. She had to call Bernie after the data breach to make his staff to respond to our concerns. Even then they didn’t get back to us, which is why we had to shut off their access in order to get them to finally let us know exactly how they snooped around HFA’s data.

“It’s not a DNC conspiracy, it’s because they never had their act together,” Paustenbach continued.

Other emails shows collusion with the Clinton campaign and even an effort to start an attack against Sanders on the basis of his religious beliefs.  For example, a May 2016 message from DNC CFO Brad Marshall suggested that the party should “get someone to ask” Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about his religious beliefs.

From:MARSHALL@dnc.org
To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-05 03:31
Subject: No shit
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
The email was sent to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda and Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach. It’s unclear who the “someone” in this message could be — though a member of the press seems like a safe bet. A request for comment sent to Marshall was not immediately returned.

So here you have not only a high ranking DNC official actively working to discredit Sanders (while the DNC is expressing shock over suggestions of favoritism) but suggesting a despicable attack based on religious beliefs.  The emails show both an campaign against Sanders and the falsity of statements made to the public.

A reply to Marshall’s email from DNC CEO Amy Dacey read only “AMEN.”

So it appears that religion runs deep among the DNC staff . . .at least when it comes to destroying Sanders and rigging the election for Clinton.

At a minimum, in my opinion, Wasserman Schultz should resign in light of these emails and the now reaffirmed allegations of bias at the DNC.  Furthermore, these officials should be held accountable if the DNC wishes to regain any semblance of being an honest broker for democratic voters.

What do you think?

When It Comes to Islam, Western Leaders Are Liars or Idiots

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Blindness epidemic, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Western leaders

Tags: , , , , , , ,

When It Comes to Islam, Western Leaders Are Liars or Idiots, PJ Media, Raymond Ibrahim, July 22, 2016

Idiots

Most politicians — practically every Democrat but also a majority of Republicans, with the notable exception of Donald Trump — make the same claims.

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

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be understood: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both.

No other alternative exists.

The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, today we hear calls for, and see acts of, violence committed in its name every day. And many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see,” so it’s no secret: Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life — not just “terrorists” or “ISIS” — unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate, and kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslims.

This is the official position of several Muslim governments, including America’s closest “friends and allies” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

It’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning: from Bangladeshi high schools to Egypt’s Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university.

It’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations that air in Muslim homes around the world.

In short, there’s no excuse today for anyone to still be ignorant about Islam, and especially for those in positions of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely this group that most vehemently denies any connection between Islam and violence.

Why?

On July 18 in Germany, an axe-waving Muslim refugee attacked a number of train passengers and critically injured three. Although an ISIS flag was found in his room, although he called for the slaughter of any Muslim who dares leave Islam, although he yelled “Allahu Akbar” — Islam’s unequivocal war cry — authorities claimed “it was too early to speculate about the motives of the attacker.”

Catholic Bishop Friedhelm Hofmann of Wuerzburg, where the axe attack took place, was bewildered: “One is speechless at such a moment. This fact can not be understood.”

Instead of being vigilant around Muslim migrants, he said: “Maybe we need to help the unaccompanied young refugees even more and help them to overcome their own traumas.”

About a month earlier in Germany, this same scene played out. While screaming “Allahu Akbar” and “infidels must die,” another Muslim man in another train station stabbed to death one man and injured three others. Still, German authorities “found no evidence of Islamist motive.”

In neighboring France — which has “Europe’s largest Muslim minority” and is also (coincidentally?) the “most threatened country” — this sequence of events (a Muslim attacks in the name of Islam, authorities claim difficulty in finding “motive”) is becoming endemic.

On July 19, a Muslim man vacationing with his pregnant wife and children stabbed a neighboring woman and her three daughters for being “scantily dressed.” The youngest girl, 8, was in critical condition with a punctured lung.

Although this is a common occurrence throughout the Muslim world — many Muslim women wear the hijab because they know the consequences of not in public — and although French television was brave enough to say that the man, named Mohamed B, 37, “may have acted out of religious motives,” Mayor Edmond Francou said he preferred “not to speculate about the motive of the attack.”

A few days earlier, another “Allahu Akbar”-screaming Muslim killed 84 people in Nice.

Yet according to French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, the killer’s “motives [were] not yet established.” Asked if he could at least confirm the attacker’s motives were linked to jihadism, he said, “No.”

Reuters went so far as to write an article blaming France for its own terrorization.

Turning to the United States, one finds the same pattern. Most recently, a Muslim man entered a gay nightclub in Orlando and killed 49. Despite the fact that ISIS regularly kills homosexuals and that the killer — who “recited prayers to Allah during the attack” — pledged his allegiance to ISIS, “Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the investigation is still ongoing, and a motive has yet to be established,” while “the FBI was confused about [his] motive.”

Earlier this year, Edward Archer — a convert to Islam — shot and wounded Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett. He later explained his motive: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”

Yet after showing a surveillance video of Archer in Islamic dress shooting at Hartnett, Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney emphatically declared:

In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.…

It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.

 One can go on and on. From California alone:

  • Despite the evidence that the Muslim couple that massacred 14 people in San Bernardino was motivated by Islamic teachings of jihad against the hated “infidel,” Obama claimed: “We do not know their motivations.” Chris Hayes and MSNBC were also “baffled” in their search for a motive.
  • Despite the many indicators that the Muslim student who went on a stabbing spree in UC Merced was described as a “devout Muslim,” had an ISIS flag, and praised Allah in his manifesto — “local and federal authorities continue to insist that Faisal Mohammad, 18, carried out the vicious attack because he’d been banished from a study group.”
  • Despite the fact that a man named “Jihad” went to an El Monte police station, where he “used the word ‘jihad’ several times” while making a bomb threat, police “so far don’t have a motive.”

Most politicians — practically every Democrat but also a majority of Republicans, with the notable exception of Donald Trump — make the same claims.

The claims begin with President Barack Obama, who insists that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” He calls for the “rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.” He classified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence,” despite the overwhelming evidence that it was jihad.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admonished us to bear in mind that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Republican leaders like John McCain gush about how “unequivocally, without a doubt, the religion of Islam is an honorable and reasonable religion. ISIS has nothing to do with the reality of Islam.”

“Conservative” talking heads like Bill O’Reilly flippantly dismiss jihad as “a perversion of Islam, we all know that.”

What is to be made of all these claims from our “leaders” that fly in the face of reality?

Only immensely deranged or immensely deceitful people can claim that a Muslim who cites the Koran and calls on Allah is not acting in the name of Islam. Take your pick, but there are no other alternatives.

Regardless of the cause behind the lies that defend Islam — stupidity or deceitfulness — the same damage is done. Remember, Islam is not threatening the West due to its own innate capabilities, but because the West allows Islam to threaten the West.

The real battle revolves around getting the West to see reality, a battle which involves rooting out the liars and fools from government, media, education, and other positions of influence. This is an admittedly herculean task, considering that the lie is the narrative and the truth is considered evil.

Not Satire | Protestant Theologian: ‘Radical Bible Groups’ A Bigger Threat To Teens Than Islamism

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Christian radicalization, Christian terrorism, Germany, Islamic radicalization, Islamic terrorism

Tags: , , , ,

Protestant Theologian: ‘Radical Bible Groups’ A Bigger Threat To Teens Than Islamism, Breitbart, y Victoria Friedman, July 22, 2016

Christers

A German protestant theologian said that ‘radical’ bible groups are a bigger radicalisation threat to adolescents than Islamists, and downplayed the number of minors who have converted and left Germany to fight for Islamic State.

Harald Lamprecht, Christian theologian and sect commissioner for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Saxony, in an interview with Der Morgenpost claims that “radical bible groups” are more of a risk to the youths of Saxony than Islamism.

During the interview, in which the theologian was asked to advise parents of how to look out for signs of Islamic radicalisation, he told parents “not to panic” and advised them, rather, to be more prepared to keep watch for warning signs of Christian radicalisation:

“As for the threat of Saxon youths, be prepared for radical Bible groups. They are a much bigger problem than Islamists.”

Downplaying the significance of the 810 young people nationally who have been radicalised by Salafists and Islamist propaganda online and have proceeded to leave Germany to join Islamic State, he pointed to the figures of radicalised youths in Saxony being in “low, single digits”.

Mr. Lamprecht, who speaks to the regional church’s three-quarters of a million members across 719 congregations, advised that interest in the Quran does not equate radicalisation and urged parents to teach their children “the difference between Islam and Islamism”.

Speaking to the German Evangelical News Agency after the Der Morgenpost interview, Mr. Lamprecht attempted to clarify his comments, stating that he did not mean to “equate the terrorist organisation with Christian fundamentalists”, but rather draw a comparison of how Bible study groups outside of mainstream Christianity “radically distort the Bible” with how Salafist groups “twist the Quran”.

He stated: “Such cases [of Christian radicalisation] are purely numerically up more frequently than the current three known cases of successful Islamist radicalisation in Saxony.” 

However, the results of Islamic radicalisation and Christian radicalisation are vastly different. A joint study by the German interior ministry and the independent Institute for Criminology Research of Lower Saxony found that devout Muslims in Germany are more prone to violence than Christians.

German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported of the research’s findings that “the willingness to commit violent crimes grows” among young Muslims “the more religious they become”, whereas the opposite was true of Christians where “the willingness to commit violent crimes, such as armed robbery or assault and battery, among young Catholics and Protestants decreases with religious fervour”.  

Germany has experienced a series of shocking Islamist-inspired attacks by radicalised youths including the stabbing of a police officer by a 15-year-old girl, the bombing of a Sikh temple by teenaged boys, and an axe attack on a train by a 17-year-old Afghan refugee.  

The interview came following the disappearance of a 15-year-old girl identified as “Linda” who ran away from her home in Pulsnitz, Saxony, in early July. The parents fear that their daughter has attempted to join Islamic State.

It is believed that the Linda flew to Istanbul, Turkey, intending to travel along one of the various documented routes used by radicalised individuals to get to Syria. Just last year eight British girls travelled to Turkey and onwards to Syria on the so-called “jihadi bride trail”.

Prior to her disappearance family and friends noted that Linda had “changed”. She started to read the Quran, wore a headscarf and Islamic clothing, and told her sister that she converted to Islam.

It has been suggested that Linda was brainwashed by an Islamic State adherent via Facebook. Last year a senior female Islamic State commander who left the terror group has claimed the organisation has a specialised social media grooming unit, where fighters work in shifts to radicalise vulnerable young people online.

In 2014 Sabina Selimovic and Samra Kesinovic from neighbouring Austria were believed to have been radicalised by reading jihadist materials on the Internet and travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Islamic State.

The “poster pin-ups” for Jihad boasted of their lives with the terrorist organisation, but that was short-lived with both reportedly pregnant and longing to return home. Though their whereabouts are still unknown, it has been reported that both are now dead, Samra allegedly used as a sex slave by Islamic State before being killed while trying to flee.

Munich All Over Again

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Democrat Party, Germany, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Media, Munich massacre, Obama and Islamic terrorism

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Munich All Over Again, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, July 22, 2016

munich then and now

[M]y fury is directed at the Democratic Party leadership, their complacent media and the rest of the morally narcissistic cohort from Hollywood to academia who have allowed this global epidemic of Islamic terrorism to grow and thrive.

They didn’t do this alone, of course, but they have contributed big time and continue to contribute, all the while doing so to preserve their pathetic grip on power. They brand Donald Trump as an unreliable blowhard, when they are something far worse — reliable enablers of evil.

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

When I was en route back to L.A. from the Republican National Convention and got word of the latest terror attack in Munich, shivers went down my proverbial spine.

Munich — déjà vu all over again.

It’s a while ago, 1972, that Palestinian terrorists massacred 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympics in that city, but that particular monstrosity came back into the news as recently as December 2015 with the release of a documentary far more potent than the pallid Steven Spielberg film on the subject. Apparently, the terrorists tortured the athletes before killing them, going so far as to castrate one in front of his teammates. (Spielberg and Tony Kushner, creepily, tried to make the Israeli revenge the moral equivalent of the Palestinians’ atrocities. Well, ignorance is bliss, I suppose.)

These and other horrifying details had been covered up for years by the German police — an interesting fact to ponder as we watch what is transpiring now and listen to the reports. As of now we know the new Munich killer was an 18-year old German-Iranian (some reports just say Iranian) who, according to at least one witness, a Muslim woman, yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he sprayed people with bullets; many were children. Early speculation he may have been a right-wing extremist appears to have faded.  A particularly scary report from the Daily Mail says police are investigating a fake ad on Facebook advertising free food at McDonald’s. The killer stood in front of a McDonald’s when he fired. Jihadi groups have advised killing children first because it inflicts the greatest pain on the community. Who knows where this will lead?

Our leaders, as we have been reminded in the last few days from France, tend to be tardy about informing the public on what actually is happening during terror incidents, often bowdlerizing or misdirecting the truth for dubious ends. The monster of Nice, we were told, was a loner only recently converted to radical Islam (and therefore somehow exonerated), when it turned out he and his Islamist co-conspirators had been meticulously planning their mass-murdering truck attack for months.

Oh, well. So it was in Nice and Paris and San Bernardino, so it was in Munich then and now — homicidal rage generated by sick religious ideology.

But it goes back further. Maybe it’s something in the water trickling down from the Bavarian alps, but Munich was holy ground to a group that got considerable support from the Islamic world through their great ally the grand mufti of Jerusalem — the Nazi Party, of course.

No political party had greater ties to Munich, from Hitler’s original speeches at the Hofbrauhaus to the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch to this place only 31 minutes from downtown on the A99. Indeed, Munich is no stranger to terrorism — on the grandest scale in human history.

That doesn’t mean the current citizens deserve to be shot. Far from it. But we should pay special attention when the bodies pile up in this epicenter of human villainy — if there is to be any hope at all for humanity. So when I saw President Obama grinning and making jokes in the midst of this madness, I wanted to puke.

This is the “Diary of a Mad Voter”and I have to say right now this voter is really mad, not just mad as in crazy or mad as in angry, but mad as in furious. And my fury is directed at the Democratic Party leadership, their complacent media and the rest of the morally narcissistic cohort from Hollywood to academia who have allowed this global epidemic of Islamic terrorism to grow and thrive.

They didn’t do this alone, of course, but they have contributed big time and continue to contribute, all the while doing so to preserve their pathetic grip on power. They brand Donald Trump as an unreliable blowhard, when they are something far worse — reliable enablers of evil.

Excessive?  I don’t think so. Look at the record as you listen to the news reports from Munich or wherever it happens next (and it certainly will). Go back and read Obama’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg (speaking of enablers) when the president called ISIS — now metastasizing to the four corners of the world — the jayvee team.  Go back… well, no matter… you get the point.  The litany is long.  When will it end?

 

France: After the Third Jihadist Attack

Posted July 23, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Europe, France, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Nice Islamist attack, Politicians

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

France: After the Third Jihadist Attack, Gatestone Institute, Guy Millière, July 23, 2016

(Please see also, Another Day, Another Jihad Massacre. — DM)

♦ Successive French governments have built a trap; the French people, who are in it, are thinking only of how to escape. The situation is more serious than many imagine. Whole areas of France are under the control of gangs and radical imams.

♦ Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: “France is at war.” He named an enemy, “radical Islamism,” but he was quick to add that “radical Islamism” has “nothing to do with Islam.” He then repeated that the French will have to get used to living with “violence and attacks.”

♦ The French are increasingly tired of attempts to exonerate Islam. They know perfectly well that all Muslims are not guilty. But they also know that all those who committed attacks in France in recent years were Muslims. The French have no desire to get used to “violence and attacks.” They do not want to be on the losing side and they feel that we are losing.

Nice, July 14, 2016: Bastille Day. The evening festivities were ending. As the crowd watching fireworks was beginning to disperse, the driver of a 19-ton truck, zig-zagging, mowed down everyone in his way. Ten minutes and 84 dead persons later, the driver was shot and killed. Dozens were wounded; many will be crippled for life. Dazed survivors wandered the streets of the city for hours.

French television news anchors quickly said that what happened was almost certainly an “accident,” or when the French authorities started to speak of terrorism, that the driver could just be a madman. When the police disclosed the killer’s name and identity, and that he had been depressed in the past, they suggested that he had acted in a moment of “high anxiety.” They found witnesses who testified that he was “not a devout Muslim” — maybe not a Muslim at all.

President François Hollande spoke a few hours later and affirmed his determination to “protect the populace.”

Prime Minister Manuel Valls repeated what he already said 18 months ago: “France is at war.” He named an enemy, “radical Islamism,” but he was quick to add that “radical Islamism” has “nothing to do with Islam.” He then repeated what he emphasized so many times: the French will have to get used to living with “violence and attacks.”

The public reaction showed that Valls convinced hardly anyone. The French are increasingly tired of attempts to exonerate Islam. They know perfectly well that all Muslims are not guilty. They also know that, nevertheless, all those who committed attacks in France in recent years were Muslims. They do not feel protected by François Hollande. They see that France is attacked with increasing intensity and that radical Islam has declared war, but they do not see France declaring war back. They have no desire to get used to “violence and attacks.” They do not want to be on the losing side and they feel that we are losing.

Because the National Front Party uses more robust language, much of the public votes for its candidates. The National Front’s leader, Marine Le Pen, will undoubtedly win the first round of voting in the presidential election next year. She will probably not be elected in the end, but if nothing changes quickly and clearly, she will have a very good chance next time.

Moderate politicians read the public opinion polls, harden their rhetoric, and recommend harsher policies. Some of them might demand harsher measures, such as the expulsion of detained terrorists who have dual citizenship and the detention of people that praise attacks. Some have even called for martial law.

Calm will gradually return, but it is clear that the situation in France is approaching the boiling point.

The recent attacks served as an accelerant. Four years ago, when Mohamed Merah murdered soldiers and Jews in Toulouse, the population did not react. Most French did not feel directly concerned; soldiers were just soldiers, and Jews were just Jews. When, in January 2015, Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were slaughtered, an emotional reaction engulfed the country, only to quickly vanish. A huge demonstration was organized in the name of “freedom of speech” and the “values of the republic.” Hundreds of thousands claimed, “Je Suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”). When, two days later, Jews were murdered again in a kosher grocery store, hardly anyone said “I am a Jew.”

Those who tried to speak of jihad were promptly reduced to silence. Not even a year later, in November, the Bataclan Theater bloodbath did not lead to protests, but was a deeper shock. The mainstream media and the government could no longer hide that it was an act of jihad. The number killed was too overwhelming; one could not just turn the page. The mainstream media and the government did their best to downplay anger and frustration and to emphasize sadness.Solemn ceremonies with flowers and candles were everywhere. A “state of emergency” was declared and soldiers were sent into the streets.

But then the feeling of danger faded. The Euro 2016 soccer championship was organized in France, and the French team’s good performance created a false sense of unity.

The Nice attack was a wake-up call again. It brutally reminded everyone that the danger is still there, deadlier than ever, and that the measures taken by the authorities were useless gesticulations. Memories of the previous killings came back.

Attempts to hide that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the terrorist in Nice, was a jihadist fooled no one. Instead, it just created more anger, more frustration, and more desire for effective action.

Days before the Nice attack, the media reported that the parliamentary inquiry commission report on the Bataclan Theater attack revealed that the victims had been ruthlessly tortured and mutilated, and that the government had tried to cover up these facts. Now the entire public discovered the extent of the horror, adding fuel to the fire.

France seems now on the verge of a revolutionary moment; it would not take much to cause an explosion. But the situation is more serious than many imagine.

Whole areas of France are under the control of gangs and radical imams. The government delicately calls them “sensitive urban zones.” Elsewhere they are bluntly called “no go zones.” There are more than 570 of them.

Hundreds of thousands of young Muslims live there. Many are thugs, drug traffickers, robbers. Many are imbued with a deeply rooted hatred for France and the West. Recruiters for jihadists organizations tell them — directly or through social networks — that if they kill in the name of Allah, they will attain the status of martyrs. Hundreds are ready. They are unpinned grenades that may explode anywhere, anytime.

Although possessing, carrying and selling weapons are strictly regulated in France, weapons of war circulate widely. And, of course, the Nice attack has shown once again that a firearm is not necessary to commit mass murder.

Twenty-thousand people are listed in the government’s “S-files,” an alert system meant to identify individuals linked to radical Islam. Most are unmonitored. Toulouse murderer Mohamed Merah, the murderers of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and many of the terrorists who attacked the Bataclan Theater were in the S-files. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the terrorist who acted in Nice, was not.

France’s intelligence chief said recently that more attacks are to come and that many potential killers wander freely, undetected.

Doing what the French government is doing today will not improve anything. On the contrary. France is at the mercy of another attack that will set the powder keg ablaze.

Doing more will lead to worse before matters get better. Regaining control of many areas would entail mobilizing the army, and leftists and anarchists would certainly add disorder to disorder.

Imprisoning whoever could be imprisoned in the name of public safety would imply more than martial law; it would mean the suspension of democratic freedoms, and even so, be an impossible task. The jails in France are already full. The police are outnumbered and showing signs of exhaustion. The French army is at the limit of its capacity for action: it already patrols the streets of France, and is deployed in Africa and the Middle East.

1578 (1)The French army is at the limit of its capacity for action: it already patrols the streets of France and is deployed in Africa and the Middle East. Pictured above: French soldiers guard a Jewish school in Strasbourg, February 2015. (Image source: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)

Successive governments have built a trap; the French, who are in it, are thinking only of how to escape.

President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls bear all the guilt. For years, many in France supported any movement that denounced “Islamophobic racism.” They passed laws defining criticism of Islam as a “hate crime.” They relied more and more on the Muslim vote to win elections. The most important left-wing think tank in France, Terra Nova, which is considered close to the Socialist Party, published several reports explaining that the only way for the left to win elections is to attract the votes of Muslim immigrants and to add more Muslims to the France’s population.

The moderate right is also guilty. President Charles de Gaulle established the “Arab policy of France,” a system of alliances with some of the worst dictatorships in the Arab-Muslim world, in the belief that France would regain its lost power thanks to this system. President Jacques Chirac followed in the footsteps of de Gaulle. President Nicolas Sarkozy helped overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya and bears a heavy responsibility for the mess that followed.

The trap revealed its lethal effects a decade ago. In 2005, riots across France showed that Muslim unrest could lead France to the brink of destruction. The blaze was extinguished thanks to the appeals for calm from Muslim organizations. Since then, France has been at the mercy of more riots.

The choice was made to practice appeasement. It did not stop the rot gaining ground.

François Hollande made hasty decisions that placed France at the center of the target. Seeing that strategic interests of France were threatened, he launched military operations against Islamist groups in sub-Saharan Africa. Realizing that French Muslims were going to train and wage jihad in Syria, he decided to engage the French army in actions against the Islamic State.

He did not anticipate that Islamist groups and the Islamic State would hit back and attack France. He did not perceive the extent to which France was vulnerable — hollowed out from within.

The results put in full light a frightening landscape. Islamists view the landscape and do not dislike what they see.

On their websites, they often quote a line from Osama bin Laden: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse.”

They appear to think that France is a weak horse and that radical Islam can bring France to its knees in a pile of dust and rubble. Time, they seem to think, is on their side as well — and demography. Muslims now make up about 10% of the French population; 25% of teenagers in France are Muslims.

The number of French Muslims who want Islamic sharia law applied in France increases year after year, as does the number of French Muslims who approve of violent jihad. More and more French people despise Islam, but are filled with fear. Even the politicians who seem ready to fight do not take on Islam.

Islamists seem to think that no French politician will to overcome what looks more and more like a perfect Arab storm. They seem to feel that the West is already defeated and does not have what it takes to carry the day. Are they wrong?