Posted tagged ‘Islamic slaughter’

REAL men like Obama aren’t afraid of widows and three year old orphans!

November 18, 2015

REAL men like Obama aren’t afraid of widows and three year old orphans! Dan Miller’s Blog, November 18, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

As Obama has told us, Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance and love. Islamists coming to America to flee the violent depredations of Crusader-inspired Quaker, Amish and Jewish terrorists produced by climate change must be welcomed. To reject them would be cowardly and un-Amerian un-Islamic.

widows with children

Thus spake Obama, who has managed to become even more of a caricature of a president than previously. He needed to try manfully, but finally surpassed even Himself. Having set the bar so high, will He ever be able to surpass Himself again?

To ask “what Obama was thinking” when he made the remarks memorialized in the above video is to suggest that He was actually thinking. Perhaps He was thinking that His followers, who have been hiding in their “safe spaces” at Yale and other bastions of higher learning, are unaware of what happened in Paris. Maybe they are also unaware that it could happen in America if we permit the unfiltered immigration of Islamic terrorists like France, German, Sweden and much of the rest of Europe have done. Maybe they can be kept oblivious to such problems by happy talk about widows and young orphans. Or perhaps it was Obama’s way of showing courage and moral superiority: unlike His cowardly opponents, He isn’t scared of widows and three year old children! Other threats? He’s dealing really well with those, so let’s change the subject; He is too busy to talk about doing anything different.

Leading-from-Behind-copy

Leading from behind is lots of work, but He does it with the same bravery, steadfastness and self-sacrifice He demonstrates daily in all other contexts.

Hashtags, the Obama Administration’s most effective Weapons of Mass Deception (WMDs), have again been deployed:

refugeeswelcome-640x480
Shouldn’t the new hashtag read “#Widows and three year old orphans Welcome?” Shouldn’t also it disparage “racist” Halloween costumes and speech offensive to Muslims? In the holy name of Islam, we must submit to Obama’s wisdom; the Department of Domestic Tranquility (DDT) must get on the case immediately to make sure that we do.f

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS

November 18, 2015

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS His real enemy isn’t the Caliph of ISIS, but the ordinary American.

November 18, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Source: Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS | Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. “You can’t contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women,” he said.

Instead he argued, “The goal has to be to dismantle them.”

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity to horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We need to face problem of radical Islam

November 17, 2015

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We need to face problem of radical Islam, Fox News, November 17, 2015

Muslim Activists Demand Action vs Islamist Extremism

November 17, 2015

Muslim Activists Demand Action vs Islamist Extremism, Clarion Project, Elliot Friedland, November 13, 2015

(Shhh. Don’t tell Obama, but these Muslims think that the Islamic State is Islamic and want reform. He might treat them as he does Egyptian President Sisi.– DM)

Iraq-Protest-Sharia-Legislation-HP_1Protesters in Iraq march against anti-women sharia legislation. (Photo: © Reuters)

“The threat of global terrorism is unlikely to end until the resolution of the civil war of ideas between Muslim modernisers and those adhering to an outmoded theology of Islamic dominance.”

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

In the aftermath of Friday’s Paris attacks, Muslim human rights activists around the world are galvanizing the fightback against the Islamist extremist ideology and those who deny the conection between the Islamic State and Islam.

The chairman of the UK’s Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin, slammed the inaction of Muslim groups saying “condemning terrorism is not enough if you are unwilling to acknowledge its causes.”

He said condemnations of terrorism from groups like Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Council of Britain left him “feeling frustrated –  because they look so incomplete.”

“I am utterly fed up with hearing people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, argue that the religious views of the terrorists are irrelevant,” he said.

Counter-extremism activist Maajid Nawaz supported Amin on Facebook saying,“None of us Muslims deserves an infantile pat on the back merely for condemning ISIS, which even al-Qaeda does.”

Maajid-Nawaz-pat-on-back-500x253

Anti-extremism activist and journalist Felix Marquardt went further, demanding “We Muslims must hunt down these monsters who make a mockery of our religion” in a fiery op-ed in Britain’s The Daily Telegraph.

He called out Muslims who merely say ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam,” despite that being the first reaction of a Muslim. He labelled it “dubious intellectually and altogether irresponsible to keep our reaction at that.”

Dr. Zudhi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, identified a “cultural battle, a battle of ideologies” as the root cause.

Raheel Raza of the Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow implored both Muslims and non-Muslims to “connect the dots to get to the root of terrorism,” arguing that “Since 9/11, the West has been waffling in the quicksand of political correctness and refuse to call a spade a spade.”

She too identifies the root cause of the Islamic State as the ideology of radical Islamism.

The former ambassador of Pakistan to the United States, Hussein Haqqani, also pointed to extremist ideology as the root cause of the Paris attacks.

“Just as the post-9/11 war against al-Qaeda degraded Osama bin Laden’s group but gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)” he writes, “extremist Islamist ideology will likely give birth to ‘Terrorism 3.0’ once the world has fought, contained and eliminated ISIL.”

This is because, he argues, “The threat of global terrorism is unlikely to end until the resolution of the civil war of ideas between Muslim modernisers and those adhering to an outmoded theology of Islamic dominance.”

Haqqani resoundingly concludes “only a concerted ideological campaign against medieval Islamist ideology, like the one that discredited and contained communism, could turn the tide.”

These are just a handful of the growing number of Muslims who are fighting the Islamist ideology on the front lines and within their own communities.

They, more than anyone, know that this is not a “clash of civilizations” between East and West but a political battle between tolerance and intolerance, between fundamentalism and openness and between theocracy and democracy.

These brave thinkers and leaders are sounding the charge and deserve our support.

Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation names the Islamist ideology:

The French connection

November 17, 2015

The French connection, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, November 17, 2015

When Islamist leaders condemned Friday night’s Paris attacks, which left more than 132 people dead and hundreds of others critically wounded, you just had to laugh through your tears.

Terror masters in Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Palestinian Authority actually had the gall to talk as if they themselves are not responsible for the ongoing murder of innocent people.

But hypocrisy, mendacity and lying as a matter of course are not the only reasons for their public expressions of solidarity with France during this frightful hour. In fact, what really bothers them is the fear that a rival group may be beating them at their own game. And hell hath no fury like a scorned, power-hungry radical Muslim with hegemonic aims and weapons with which to achieve them.

Such monsters, some in suits and ties to throw you off, are able to get away with playing the West for fools — particularly when the so-called leader of the free world keeps kowtowing to them, while espousing denial as a policy. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the bloodbath in Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama made a statement that put a smug smile on the faces of jihadists everywhere.

In the first place, he called the carnage “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” This is an amazing assertion, since I don’t even share Obama’s values, let alone those of a great portion of “humanity” inside and out of Washington, D.C. You know, like the multimillions of anti-Semites, Christian-killers, women-subjugators and child-abusers who are trying to win the war over the world’s character and soul.

Secondly, the president said he didn’t “want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this.”

Right, responded radical Muslims in the privacy of their bunkers and bomb factories, for all Obama knew, the shootings and explosions in a theater, restaurants and at a soccer stadium could have been carried out by disgruntled Buddhists.

By the time he arrived in Antalya to attend the G-20 economic summit less than 48 hours later, even the U.S. president could no longer plead ignorance. So he had to address the issue of Islamic State tentacles spreading every which way, in spite of his having announced a few days earlier that its threat had been “contained.”

Even members of the left-leaning media were challenging his claim that the way he’s been fighting the al-Qaida spin-off is still the right one. And this, while sidling up to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose recent landslide re-election was a dark day for people with those ostensibly “universal” values Obama had mentioned.

The good news here is also the bad.

Effectively combating Islamic State is actually irrelevant in the wider context, as counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka has been trying to explain for years.

That Friday night’s multiple attacks in Paris were carried out by terrorists affiliated with ISIS is “wholly irrelevant,” Gorka — national security editor at Breitbart and military affairs fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — told me this weekend. “All members of the global jihadist movement, be they Sunni or Shia, Arab, Persian or converts, are driven by the same desire: the need to kill the kuffar [infidels] for the glory of Allah. All attacks, be they 9/11, 7/7, Mumbai, Amman, Paris or the recent stabbings in Israel, are tied together by the connective tissue of jihadist ideology.”

He stressed, “It is time for us to realize — and demand of our leaders that they act accordingly — that we face an existential threat, which, over the long term, could be as dangerous as Hitler’s Third Reich. This is a war between good and evil. And only one side will prevail in the end.”

I still harbor hope that the former will emerge victorious. But this cannot happen unless certain conditions are met. These include: getting the nuclear-deal-obsessive Democrats out of the White House; making Europe understand that it should be labeling undesirable Islamists, not Israeli products; and raising children in the West to grasp that the blessed ability to live in a free society means being prepared to die defending it against its detractors and destroyers.

Obama: not bringing ISIS jihadists to America would “betray our values”

November 17, 2015

Obama: not bringing ISIS jihadists to America would “betray our values”

obama_muslim3

Also not freeing Al Qaeda terrorists from Gitmo would violate our values. And describing Islamic terrorism as Islamic terrorism would really violate our values.

It seems as if Obama’s version of American values is a little hard to tell apart from ISIS values. Right down to locking up a filmmaker who made a YouTube video about Mohammed.

Speaking to reporters from Islamic Turkey, a regime which has made it illegal to even discuss its own genocide and which sponsors Islamic terrorists around the world, Obama got on his high horse over the huge numbers of Syrian Muslim migrants he wants to import to America.

But not before making a bunch of excuses for his own incompetence.

“It’s not their sophistication or the particular weaponry that they possess, but it is the ideology they carry with them and their willingness to die,” Obama whined.

That would be the ideology whose name the administration is unwilling to speak. But ISIS would need much better weaponry if Europe and America didn’t insist on importing its fighters into their countries. Once there all they need is a gun or a homemade bomb to wreak havoc.

This is a war where we’re inviting in our own invaders. And Obama doubled down on keeping the invasion going.

“Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values. Our nations can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own security. We can and must do both,” Obama promised.

Except we can’t do both. 9/11 and the World Trade Center bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing showed that. As well as the countless smaller terror plots since then.

Then Obama rejected the idea of focusing on helping persecuted Christians over the violent Islamic Supremacist majority. “When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

Actually Obama does. It’s why his regime has been deporting Christians while taking in huge numbers of Muslims.

If we’re taking in refugees, we should be taking in those who genuinely have nowhere else to go in a region dominated by Muslim countries. Sunni or Shiite Muslims have their own countries they can go to.

They are not refugees.

During WW2, the United States did not admit Nazis, moderate or otherwise, as refugees. That would have been ridiculously stupid. Syria is in the middle of a religious civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Neither side are victims. They are both perpetrators of massacres toward each other.

Obama claims that we should not “somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.”

The “somehow” part comes because refugees are an entrance point for terrorists and terrorism. It’s not “somehow”. It’s directly causative.

While Obama bleats about compassion, his compassion has been utterly lacking when it comes to persecuted Christians. He only has compassion for Muslims.

 ISIS Launches Cyber Jihad Fundraiser to Arm PA Arabs in Attacks on Israeli Jews

November 16, 2015

ISIS launches a cyber jihad fundraiser to arm Palestinian Authority terrorists in their efforts to kill Israeli Jews.

By: Hana Levi Julian

Published: November 16th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » ISIS Launches Cyber Jihad Fundraiser to Arm PA Arabs in Attacks on Israeli Jews

The quoted address for the ISIS cyber jihad fundraiser to arm Palestinian Authority terrorists against Israeli Jews.

The quoted address for the ISIS cyber jihad fundraiser to arm Palestinian Authority terrorists against Israeli Jews.
Photo Credit: Twitter

The Da’esh (ISIS) terror organization has launched a cyber jihad fundraiser to arm Palestinian Authority terrorists in their efforts to attack Israel’s Jews.

The cyber campaign allows a donor to purchase a weapon for as little as $3,000 (a simple rocket-propelled grenade launcher) and donate it to the “cause” – killing Israeli Jews, that is.

Aimed at arming “mujahedeen of Beyt al-Maqdis” — a reference to Jerusalem and a metaphor for all of Israel – the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports the fundraiser started a few weeks ago on Twitter and Telegram.

“Al Aqsa Nafeer” (mobilization for jihad) is very busy online collecting money to buy weapons and equipment specifically for terrorists in Judea, Samaria and Gaza so they can kill Jews throughout Israel.

A statement released by the terror group said that so far the campaign has been “successful,” MEMRI reported.

Are you a small-time donor? Then you can participate in the jihad for the token sum of only $900, and donate a Katyusha rocket.

For $4,000, you can provide a Grad missile to the jihad – one with a range of 20 kilometers – and with a bigger investment ($10,000) your Grad missile can reach as far as 40 kilometers!

A sniper rifle can be donated for $6,000; a PK machine gun for $5,500. Maybe you are a big-time donor: in that case, donate an entire arsenal. The sky is the limit.

The campaign, which is “slickly produced” according to MEMRI, features various posters and a video, and is coordinated across most important social media platforms, including Skype, Gmail, Twitter and Telegram.

Instructions for the transfer of funds are provided in a shielded manner, probably after a discreet screening process.

Al-Baghdadi ordered attack on anti-ISIS coalition

November 16, 2015

Al-Baghdadi ordered attack on anti-ISIS coalition, Iraq warned France 1 day before Paris carnage

Published time: 16 Nov, 2015 13:24

Source: Al-Baghdadi ordered attack on anti-ISIS coalition, Iraq warned France 1 day before Paris carnage — RT News

 

Bullet impacts are seen in the window of a restaurant window the day after a series of deadly attacks in Paris , November 14, 2015. © Pascal Rossignol
A dispatch sent by Iraqi officials and obtained by AP shows that Baghdad warned members of the US-led coalition battling ISIS of imminent attacks by the group just one day before the Paris terror attacks killed 129 people and wounded 352 others.

Iraqi intelligence sent a dispatch saying that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had ordered an attack on coalition countries fighting against the group in Iraq and Syria, as well as on Iran and Russia, through bombings or other attacks, according to the message.

“We have recovered information from our direct sources in the Islamic State terrorist organization about the orders issued by terrorist ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ directing all members of the organization to implement an international attack that includes all coalition countries, in addition to Iran and the Russian Federation, through bombings or assassinations or hostage taking in the coming days. We do not have information on the date and place for implementing these terrorist operations at this time,” the dispatch read.

Speaking anonymously to AP, six senior Iraqi officials confirmed the information in the message, and four of those officials said they specifically warned France of a possible attack. Two officials told AP that France was warned beforehand of further details that the country’s authorities have not made public.

The officials said the Paris attacks appear to have been planned in Raqqa, Syria – ISIS’s de-facto capital – where the attackers planned specifically for the operation. After their training, the attackers traveled to France where they met with members of a sleeper cell who helped them carry out the deadly attacks. A total of 24 people were reportedly involved in the operation: 19 attackers and five others in charge of planning and logistics.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari also told journalists on Sunday that Iraqi intelligence agencies had obtained information that some countries, including France, the US, and Iran, would be targeted, and had shared intelligence with those countries.

But a French security official told AP that Paris receives such communication “all the time” and “every day.” He added that the head of French counterintelligence goes to bed every night asking, “Why not today?”

The French president’s office did not comment to the news agency.

Meanwhile, a senior US official said he was not aware of any threat information sent to Western governments that was specific enough to have protected against the Paris attacks. He said, however, that Western governments have expressed concern for months about ISIS-inspired attacks by militants who fought in Syria.

Baghdad has been sharing intelligence with coalition nations since they launched their airstrike campaign against ISIS last year. The US-led coalition is operating in Iraq and Syria, providing aerial support to allied ground forces in both countries, as well as arming and training Iraqi forces.

ISIS claimed responsibility Saturday for the Paris attacks, which included gun and bomb attacks on a stadium, a concert hall and cafes. Seven of the attackers blew themselves up, and French authorities have been searching for accomplices.

The assaults come 10 months after Islamic extremists attacked the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris. France’s prime minister cited “failings” in intelligence at the time.

France’s President Lied, Frenchmen Died

November 16, 2015

France’s President Lied, Frenchmen Died It’s time to tell the truth about the migrant crisis.

November 16, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

Source: France’s President Lied, Frenchmen Died | Frontpage Mag

Last month, French President Francois Hollande ridiculed the idea that the massive numbers of Muslim migrants entering his country were any kind of threat.

“Those who argue that we are being invaded are manipulators and falsifiers, who do this only for political reasons, to scare,” the left-wing politician huffed.

And then the pudgy little Socialist had to be rapidly evacuated from France’s national soccer stadium after one of those refugees blew himself up trying to reach Monsieur le Président, and Merkel’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Minister Steinmeier had urged rejecting “barriers, fences” when it came to the Muslim migrants, but it was a barrier and the security in front of it that kept one of his beloved refugees from reaching him.

The ordinary people who didn’t have and don’t have the security measures that protect Hollande and Steinemeier died in Paris, blown up and gunned down where they sat, lay and stood.

Before the man carrying a passport in the name of Ahmed Almohammad blew himself up at France’s national soccer stadium, he came on a boat from Turkey with hundreds of other refugees. He passed through Greece, Serbia and Croatia, along with countless other migrants, accompanied no doubt by journalists and human rights workers eager to document the plight of the “refugees”.

We may yet find him in the background of some news photo as the photographer focuses in for propaganda purposes on one of the few children among the horde of grim men of military age.

His passport may have been real. It may have been fake. No one was likely to notice. The name on his passport was not on an Interpol warrant. And so he was allowed into the heart of Europe.

In Greece, overburdened local authorities don’t care. New migrants are allowed to fill out their own paperwork and are handed letters of transit that allow them access to Europe. An employee at a local registration center was quoted as saying, “We just have to trust what they write down.”

In September, at a joint press conference with Secretary of State John Kerry, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had called taking in migrants a “moral duty” and urged Americans to “increase the numbers you can take into your country”.

Now Germany is hunting for its own links to the Paris attacks. A few days earlier, Steinemeier had boasted that Germans were bending over backwards for the refugees and proving that, “Germany belongs not to the screamers and hatemongers.” But the man with all the guns and bombs in his car who has been taken into custody might disagree. So would the terror cells of Hamburg.

But don’t assume that Hollande or Steinmeier learned any lessons from the latest Muslim massacre.

In September, France’s President Hollande told the French that he had information that attacks against France had been planned from Syria and that planning for future air strikes against ISIS would begin.

In that same speech, he announced that France would be taking in 24,000 migrants.

Hollande knew ahead of time that this disaster was coming. He even prepared the response to it at the same time as he was welcoming some of the potential perpetrators into his country.

It wouldn’t be too surprising if he even had a speech pre-written and ready to go for just such an attack.

Even as Hollande was denouncing “manipulators and falsifiers” for trying to “scare” the French, he had a very good idea of just how much there was to be scared of.

The President of France had looked his nation in the eye and lied to them about the invasion.

Monsieur le Président probably didn’t expect to be this close to the killing when it happened. Neither did Foreign Minister Steinmeier. It’s the Jews and Poles in Marseille or the people in Calais who happen to be a little too close to the New Jungle camp that were meant to be the sacrifices of their compassion.

Unfortunately for Hollande and Steinmeier, the Islamic State didn’t get the memo. Unfortunately for us, their only real response to the crisis they caused will be to try to globalize it even further.

Back then Hollande and Merkel were demanding a “permanent mandatory system” for redistributing Muslim migrants across Europe. The G20 meeting features an alleged draft resolution calling it a global problem in an attempt to redistribute the migrants not just around Europe, but around the world.

Germany and France turned the Muslim migrant crisis into a European problem. Now they want to repeat the butchery in Paris around the world.

The man calling himself Ahmed Almohammad had been a hot potato that every country along the route was happy to pass on to the next. Greece, Croatia and Serbia just wanted the huge influx of invaders to move on. In Germany and France, the emphasis is not on security, but on resettlement.

No one is interested in security. And security is not a realistic option.

Greece doesn’t have the money, resources or infrastructure to screen the migrant horde. Frontex is undermanned and its employees, in European fashion, work until 4 PM, at which point the refugees just write whatever they want and get handed letters of transit by Greek officials that want them gone.

The Balkan countries are not any better equipped to manage the invasion than Greece. And the European countries that actually want the migrants aren’t interested in checking their papers, but in signing them up for as many social services as possible.

That’s not just true of Europe. It’s equally true of the United States.

Any talk of vetting is nothing more than plausible deniability. Unless a terrorist is already in our database, vetting him is a lost cause. Our system couldn’t handle the World Trade Center bombers or the 9/11 hijackers and they came from functioning countries that weren’t in the middle of a civil war.

We are not going to be able to vet tens of thousands of people who claim they come from Syria, who have fake passports or who plead that they lost their passports at sea, whose names can be rendered in enough ways to give even a linguist a headache and who will get access to the United States long enough for them to disappear even if we did eventually turn up something on them.

And we’re not supposed to vet them.

Despite the rhetoric, France and Germany are less interested in fighting ISIS than in getting the United States and the rest of the world to take more Muslim migrants. Instead of having ISIS in every city in Europe, they seem determined to make sure that it is in every city in the world instead.

ISIS may have carried out the brutal massacres in Paris, but Hollande, Merkel and the other friends of the refugees helped make it happen. And they want to help make it happen around the world.

The migrant crisis is an invasion. The bodies in Paris could just as easily have been stacked up in any country that was foolish and feckless enough to open the door to ISIS by taking in “refugees”.

If Obama and Kerry succeed in their plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian migrants to America, the next brutal massacre might not happen in Paris. It might happen in one of our cities instead.

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

November 15, 2015

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, November 15, 2015

Paris-Attack-Los-Angeles-French-Consulate-IPA woman takes part in a vigil in front of the French Consulate in Los Angeles as a show of solidarity with the people of France. (Photo: © Reuters)

The coordinated attacks in Paris and suspected Islamic State bombing of a Russian airliner raises the risk that Islamic State supporters in the U.S. and other Western countries will spur into action. The opening of a new phase in Islamic State (ISIS) terror will also result in a fresh wave of recruits radicalized by the appearance that the Islamic State is quickly ascending.

You can watch Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro discuss this increasing threat on FOX News’ “America’s News HQ” on Saturday afternoon below:

 

First, there is a risk of “copycat” attacks by the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorist supporters, including those who are loyal to Al-Qaeda and want to show that the group hasn’t become a “has-been” in the jihadist world. It is hard to express the excitement that an aspiring jihadist will feel at two breakthrough moments in the war against the West in such short order. At this sensitive time, any kind of an attack—even a simple shooting or pipe bombing—takes on much greater significance.

If an Islamist terrorist is planning or considering an attack, it is difficult to resist the temptation to strike now. Even a relatively minor attack becomes part of a bigger story, rather than being forgotten amongst the wave of headlines about acts of violence. On an egotistical level, a jihadist will want to attach his name to this dramatic story.

Secondly, there are those who will worry that they might now lose their chance to strike and earn their ticket to Paradise by dying in jihad as a “martyr.” Supporters of the Islamic State have every reason to expect Western governments to become extra aggressive in rounding up possible terrorists. ISIS supporters who believe they are on the authorities’ radar could choose to act sooner instead of patiently preparing their plot and risk being foiled.

The attacks in Paris and on the Russian airliner show that the threat from the Islamic State is greater than ever, and we’ve entered a new period where they’ve moved towards more sophisticated, Al-Qaeda-style attacks in the West. They are engaging in pre-planning and dispatching teams of operatives instead of just hoping to inspire a random supporter into committing violence independently. This upgrade in quality is a powerful tool in the Islamic State’s propaganda arsenal.

The organization’s ability to recruit is largely based on the appearance of success. No one wants to join an organization whose recent history is filled with losses. Moreover, success is seen as Allah‘s endorsement; the ultimate winning argument in a theological debate among those dabbling in Islamist extremism.

Just as the Islamic State’s burst onto the scene with the capturing of Mosul in 2014 earned it a wave of recruits, these attacks will also earn it a wave of recruits and it will encourage the millions of Islamic State supporters who have yet to take up arms to finally act upon their beliefs.

It is critical that the West push back against the Islamic State’s convincing narrative of success. Those in the region understand the importance of this. We saw many tweets from people in the Middle East directed towards ISIS that told the group that their attacks in Paris cannot erase their setbacks elsewhere.

Dramatic events like these make recent losses like the killing of “Jihadi John” and the Kurds recapturing Sinjar seem like distant memories, but they deserve to be a part of the news coverage and U.S. government’s international messaging. Instead of focusing on single events that the Islamic State hopes will grab our attention, we must put them into a broader context that the Islamic State is less eager for the public to know about.