Former Al Qaeda Terrorist: Another Attack Coming in ‘Two Weeks’


Megyn, seemingly hearing verses from the Hadith and Quran calling for jihad for the first time, asks “is that radical Islam?”

Fox News Insider, Nov. 17, 2015:

An ex-terrorist who later became a CIA double agent says a second public attack is likely to occur within the next fortnight.

“I believe that within the next two weeks, we will have an attack,” Morten Storm, a Danish former Al Qaeda member, said on “The Kelly File” tonight.

“The people who are on the run at the moment from ISIS in Europe are very desperate, and they know their time’s up, and they will need to do as much damage as possible,” he explained.

Storm said the security situation in Europe has become “quite severe.”

“And I also believe that copycats in America will do their best to do what their brothers have done in Europe,” he said.

Staging an attack here would be “a bit different,” because borders here are more tightly controlled, Storm noted.

But on the other hand, people here have more access to firearms, he said.

He says terrorist militants may focus on “softer targets” in America, such as civilians in “shopping malls,” he said.


During the interview Storm reads from the Hadith and the Quran to get across to the audience that we need to understand where the jihadists are getting their ideology from. Megyn Kelly, looking extremely alarmed, interrupts him and asks in a shocked tone of voice, “is that radical Islam?!” as if she had never heard those verses before. ***sigh***

The Paris Attacks Were Not ‘Nihilism’ but Sacred Strategy

Janet Daley has called ISIS a 'death cult'

Janet Daley has called ISIS a ‘death cult’

By Mark Durie, Nov. 17, 2015:

LEADING commentator Janet Daley’s article in Saturday’s TelegraphThe West is at war with a death cult’ stands for everything that is woeful about European elites’ response to Islamic jihad.

It is a triumph of religious illiteracy.

The jihadist enemy, she asserts, is utterly unintelligible, so beyond encompassing in ‘coherent, systematic thought’ that no vocabulary can describe it: ‘This is just insanity’, she writes. Because the enemy is ‘hysterical’, lacking ‘rational demands’, ‘negotiable limits,’ or ‘intelligible objectives’ Daley claims it is pointless to subject its actions to any form of historical, social or theological analysis, for no-one should attempt to ‘impose logic on behaviour that is pathological’.

Despite this, Daley then ventures to offer analysis of and explanations for ISIS’ actions, but in doing so she relies upon her own conceptual categories, not those of ISIS.

Her explanations therefore fall wide of the mark.


Daley writes: ‘We face a violent and highly contagious madness that believes the killing of civilians is a moral act.’  Here she appeals to Western concepts of war, reflected, for example, in the Geneva Convention, which provides detailed principles for the ‘protection of civilian persons’.

Yet the first step in understanding a cultural system alien to one’s own, is to describe it in its own terms.

ISIS does not subscribe to the Geneva Convention.  Its actions and strategies are based upon medieval Islamic laws of jihad, which make no use of the modern Western concept of ‘civilian’.

They do, however, refer to the category of disbelievers (mushrik or kafir).
ISIS believes that killing disbelievers is a moral act, in accordance, for example, with Sura 9:5 of the Qur’an, which states :‘Fight and kill the idolators (mushrik) wherever you find them’.

Not nihilism

Daley writes: ‘The enemy has stated explicitly that it does not revere life at all’ and ‘Civilians are not collateral damage in this campaign: their deaths are the whole point.’  She goes on to lament that the latest French attacks lack any purpose, but are ‘carried out for the sheer nihilistic thrill of it’.

The claim that ISIS does not ‘revere life’ seems to refer to any number of statements by Islamic radicals, including an ISIS militant who vowed to ‘fill the streets of Paris with dead bodies’, and boasted that ISIS ‘loves death like you love life’ (see here).  This is a theological reference to a series of verses in the Qur’an in which Jews are criticised for desiring life (Sura 2:94-96, 62:6-8).

According to the Qur’an, loving life is a characteristic of infidels (Sura 3:14; 14:3; 75:20; 76:27) because it causes them to disregard the importance of the next life.  The taunt much used by jihadis, ‘We love death like you love life’,  implies that jihadis are bound for paradise while their enemies are hell-bound.

The point of these statements is that Muslims are willing to fight to the death, while their infidel enemies will turn back in battle. This is not about reverence for life, but about who has the will to win. This has nothing to do with nihilism, which is a belief that there are no values, nothing to be loyal to, and no purpose in living. In fact ISIS fighters have strong and clear loyalties and values, alien though they may be to those of Europe.

Daley’s claim that the deaths are ‘the whole point’ is also mistaken. While it is true that the jihadis consider killing infidels a meritorious act, potentially earning the killer a place in paradise (see here), and they consider being killed in battle against infidels a ticket to paradise, in fact the killings do serve a strategic purpose. This is to make infidels afraid, and thereby to weaken their will to resist Islamic dominance.

This strategy is commended by the Qur’an, for example in Sura 8:12, ‘I shall cast dread into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above (their) necks and strike (off) all their fingers!’, as well as by the successful example of Muhammad in fighting the Jews of Medina, referred to in Sura 33:26-27, ‘He brought down from their fortifications those of the People of the Book who supported them, and cast dread into their hearts. You killed a group (of them), and took captive (another) group. And he caused you to inherit their land, their homes, and their wealth, and a land you had not set foot on.’  A similar passage is Sura 59:2, which ISIS has in fact been quoting in its celebrations of the Paris carnage.

It may seem to Daley that ISIS’ often-stated intention of defeating the West is fanciful, but the point is to understand ISIS, and as far as it is concerned, these deadly attacks are instrumental in weakening the will of infidels and hastening eventual victory.

Daley wonders what possible point these attacks could serve. She speculates:  ‘… what is the alternative that is being demanded? Sharia law? The subjection of women? An end to liberal democracy? Are any of these things even within the bounds of consideration? What could be accomplished by national self-doubt or criticism at this point, when there is not even a reasonable basis for discussion with the enemy?’  It is hardly a secret that the ultimate goal of ISIS is to bring non-Muslims everywhere  to convert to Islam or live under an Islamic caliphate as dhimmis. Sharia law and the subjection of women are part and parcel of this.

It is odd that Daley laments having no reasonable basis for negotiating with the enemy.  ISIS is not playing by a Western-style negotiating rule book. It is following Muhammad’s instructions to his followers to offer three choices to infidels: conversion, surrender, or the sword.  Bin Ladin has explained that the West’s rejection of this framework is the whole reason for its conflict with what he calls ‘the authority of Islam’:

“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of thejizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword, for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (The Al Qaeda Reader)

It may seem unimaginable to European elites that ISIS is fighting for the goal of the surrender or conversion of Europe, but ISIS is thinking in time frames which extend to centuries, and their forebears conquered vast territories using such tactics.  A final act of conquest can be preceded by decades, or even centuries, of military raids.

While killing is currently the main mode of ISIS’ attacks inside the West, if they could they would use other tactics as well, such as taking booty and slaves or destroying infrastructure, as they have been doing in Syria and Iraq.


Daley claims it is pointless to argue with people who have no reasonable grievances, for ‘the French people did not deserve this, just as Americans did not deserve 9/11’.  However the important question is how ISIS sees its own motivations.  Their ideology teaches them that infidels deserve death, simply by virtue of their unbelief.  This has nothing to do with France’s history of colonialism or its treatment of Muslim minorities.  ISIS needed no appeal to grievances to justify killing and enslaving Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, so why should they view the people of France any differently?  Their objection to Europeans is that they are not Muslims, and their objection to European states is that they do not implement sharia law.


It is irresponsible and dangerous to claim that a tenacious enemy is insane and incomprehensible. To refuse to acknowledge the ideology of ISIS, and to deny its relevance is tantamount to a death-wish.
Like so many other revivalist Islamic groups, ISIS believes that it will be successful if it stays faithful to its divinely-mandated goals and tactics.  It believes the nations of Europe are morally corrupt, weak infidels who love life too much to fight a battle to the death with stern Muslim soldiers who have set their hearts on paradise.  It believes Europe stands on the wrong side of history.

To combat this ideology it is necessary for Europe to prove ISIS wrong on all counts. It must show strength, not weakness. It must have confidence in its cultural and spiritual identity. It must be willing to fight for its survival. It must show that it believes in itself enough to fight for its future. It must defend its borders.  It must act like someone who intends to win an interminably long war against an implacable foe.

There is a great deal Europe could have done to avert this catastrophe.  It could, long ago, have challenged the Islamic view of history which idolised jihad and its intended outcome, the dhimma.  It could have demanded that Islam renounce its love affair with conquest and dominance.  It could have encouraged Muslims to follow a path of self-criticism leading to peace.  This lost opportunity is what Bat Ye’or referred to in a prescient 1993 interview as the ‘relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism’.

Instead the elites of Europe embarked on decades of religiously illiterate appeasement and denialism.

There is still much that European states could do to defeat ISIS.  They could, for example, inflict catastrophic military failure upon it as a powerful counter-argument to its theology of success.  This will not deliver decisive, final victory against jihadism, but it will make the supremacist claims of ISIS less credible and hurt its recruitment.  Islam’s laws of war allow Muslims to suspend their battle with infidels temporarily if there is no immediate prospect of victory and the risks to their cause are too great.

Europe also needs to act to suppress incitement of jihadi ideology by its clients, including the anti-Israeli jihadism of the Palestinian Authority.  It must put more pressure on the militarily vulnerable Gulf states to stop funding Islamic radicalism throughout the Middle East and exporting jihad-revering versions of Islamic theology throughout the whole world.

One hope for Europe is that Islamic populations will get tired of the doctrine of jihad and all its bitter fruits. There are some signs that this is already happening, and many of the Muslims who are now seeking asylum in their hundreds of thousands will have come to this conclusion.  However it seems likely that Muslim communities now established within Europe will be the last to reconsider their dogmas and their take on history, because they have not had to suffer first-hand the harsh realities of life under Islamic dystopias such as the ISIS ‘caliphate’ or Iran’s Islamic Revolution.  A 2014 opinion poll found that among French 18-24 year olds, the Islamic State had an approval rating of 27%, which must include the overwhelming majority of young French Muslim men.  For Europe, the challenge from within will be more enduring and intractable than the challenge from without.

Nevertheless, European states could still do much on their own turf. They could ban Saudi and other Middle Eastern funding to Islamic organisations, including mosques. They could stop appeasing Islamists in their midst. They could, even at this late hour, demand that the large and rapidly growing Muslim communities now well-established across Europe engage in constructive self-criticism of their religion, for the sake of peace.

This article first appeared in Lapido Media.

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Shock: The Grand Lesson of the Paris Jihad

By Raymond Ibrahim, Nov. 14, 2015:

What is the grand, take away lesson from yesterday’s jihadi/terrorist attack in Paris, that left 129 dead and hundreds injured?

Is it a result of the mass influx of Muslim migrants into Europe—including Islamic State operatives?

For all who are uninformed, the above are certainly lessons associated with the Paris attack.  But they are not the grand lesson.Is it yet another reflection of Islam’s unwavering Rule of Numbers, which holds that, wherever and whenever Muslims grow in numbers—and they make for a large minority in France—the same acts of “anti-infidel” violence that are endemic to the Islamic world grow with them?

The grand lesson is that such attacks must and will continue to multiply in severity.  Why?  Because Western nations, their leaders and media talking heads continue to be shocked and dismayed.  As Judith Berman writes for the Gatestone Institute today:

One of the most surprising aspects of the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night is how “deeply shocked” members of the European political establishment appeared to be.

Angela Merkel, David Cameron and the Pope all expressed their condolences — and “deep shock” — at the well-coordinated, citywide terror attacks in six different places across Paris…

Even NBA players express shock, sympathy over Paris terrorist tragedy.

What is actually truly shocking is that so many are still shocked.  When someone is shocked, they are essentially saying they have no idea how a specific event, in this case yesterday’s Paris attack, came to pass.

In turn, this means that all the factors that led up to such terrorist attacks—from an already large Muslim presence further engorged with more Muslim migraters, to an inability to speak honestly about Islam’s supremacist and violent teachings—will continue unabated.

And that means many more such attacks and worse will continue.  Count on it.


Also see:



Breitbart, by Ian Hanchett, Nov. 14, 2015:

Columnist and author Mark Steyn argued that a “large pool of people” who “provide a comfort zone within which this virus incubates” and that Western leaders are going to have to ask themselves “is it really a good idea to admit millions and millions of people to European countries?” on Saturday’s “Fox & Friends” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said, “nobody wants to say they were right about this, but I wrote a book almost ten years ago, and people said it was a alarmist. I’ve been listening to you guys all morning, and it’s striking to me, every interview you’ve had, Tucker has said, at one point, well, is it — some variation of is it really a good idea to admit millions and of millions of people to European countries? And people then start to tap dance around that issue, but when you get to it, that’s at the heart of it. That there is a large pool of people who, they don’t want to kill people, they don’t want bomb people, they don’t want to blow people up, but they provide a comfort zone within which this virus incubates. And at some point, if Mr. Hollande, and Mr. Cameron, and all these people talking about our values this morning are serious about that, they will have to do as Tucker did and ask themselves that question, and come up with an answer to it.”

When asked if the president realized “we have different values from the people who did this,” Steyn answered, “No, he doesn’t, and he wants to preserve that myth. If you look at the two big French attacks this year, for example, this attack was on people who just going to concerts, just going to restaurants, just going to soccer games, people find that well, easy to say, well you shouldn’t be blown up if you just go to a restaurant, or you just go to a soccer game. But when you get to the free speech thing, when you get to Charlie Hebdo in January, the majority of Muslims, in France, and in other western European nations, do not accept the concept of free speech. Free speech is not a universal value. It arises from a very narrow, particular tradition on this planet, and when you country becomes ten percent, 15 percent, 20 percent Muslim, there’s less and less of market for a free speech. So, despite what Obama, and Cameron, and Mr. Hollande say, that value of free speech will die, because there will be people who do not share that value.”

Steyn added that the war against terror can’t be fought on an “intelligence basis. I mean, we’ve been talking about whether you can vet people before — as they come in. A lot of these people, for example the Boston Marathon bomber, the guy who did the stabbings in Colorado just last week, they come in, and they’re perfectly normal little kids, and then they get radicalized as they live in Western societies. A quarter million people entered one German state, Bavaria, in September and October, a quarter million people. The German police estimate that it takes 60 people working on just tracking one known person on these watch lists. So, you cannot solve it by intelligence. You have to actually talk about things like a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and waging the battle ideologically. You have to be prepared — you have to, not just talk about our values, as Cameron did. You have to identify what those values are, and be prepared to defend and advance them in the world. Don’t just say that they’re universal. Because the guy in Yemen, and the goat herd, the Pashtun goat herd, and the fellow who thinks that his daughter got raped, so she deserves to die, these people don’t think they’re universal values. And Obama is useless if that’s all that he’s got to say about it.”

He added, “I think it has to be a two prong thing. I mean, this is a domestic battle, as much as an overseas war. In that these are people who nominally are citizens of Western nations, yet feel no allegiance to those nations. I mean, we pretend, we talk about the fellow in Colorado for example. The ABC News headline was a Santa Clara teenager had perpetrated the attacks. So, we present these people as normal residents of Santa Clara, of the United States, of France, Canada, Australia, but they bare, they — in the end, their sense of identity is not French, or Canadian, or Australian, or American. It’s with a pan-national identity, that actually doesn’t think in terms of nation-states. It’s bigger than that. The caliphate isn’t interested in the borders of France, or Belgium, or Germany. it’s actually making the very concept of national identity irrelevant, and replacing it with something bigger.”

Why the Paris Massacre Will Have Limited Impact

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
November 14, 2015

The murder of some 127 innocents in Paris by a jihadi gang on Friday has again shocked the French and led to another round of solidarity, soul searching, and anger. In the end, however, Islamist violence against Westerners boils down to two questions: How much will this latest atrocity turn public opinion? And how much will it further spur the Establishment to deny reality?

As these questions suggest, the people and the professionals are moving in opposite directions, the former to the right, the latter to the left. In the end, this clash much reduces the impact of such events on policy.

Public opinion moves against Islamists specifically and Islam more generally when the number of deaths are large enough. America’s three thousand dead on 9/11 stands out as by far the largest mortality but many other countries have had their equivalent – the Bali bombings for Australia, the railroad bombing for Spain, the Beslan school massacre for Russia, the transportation bombings for Britain.

Sheer numbers are not the only consideration. Other factors can multiply the impact of an assault, making it almost the political equivalent of mass carnage: (1) The renown of those attacked, such as Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands and the Charlie Hebdo office in France. (2) The professional status of the victim, such as soldiers or police. (3) High-profile circumstances, such as the Boston Marathon bombing.

3300In addition to the over 27,000 attacks globally connected to Islam since 9/11, or more than 5 per day (as counted by, a huge increase in illegal immigration from the Middle East recently exacerbated feelings of vulnerability and fear. It’s a one-way street, with not a single soul ever heard to announce, “I used to worry about Islamism but I don’t any more.”

These cases make more Westerners worried about Islam and related topics from the building of minarets to female infibulation. Overall, a relentless march rightwards is underway. Surveys of European attitudes show 60 to 70 percent of voters expressing these concerns. Populist individuals like Geert Wilders of the Netherlands and parties like the Sweden Democrats are surging in the polls.

But when it comes to the Establishment – politicians, the police, the press, and the professors – the unrelenting violence has a contrary effect. Those charged with interpreting the attacks live in a bubble of public denial (what they say privately is another matter) in which they feel compelled to pretend that Islam has no role in the violence, out of concern that to recognize it would cause even more problems.

These 4-P professionals bald-facedly feign belief in a mysterious “violent extremist” virus that seems to afflict only Muslims, prompting them to engage in random acts of barbaric violence. Of the many preposterous statements by politicians, my all-time favorite is what Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said about the Charlie Hebdo jihadis: “They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

This defiance of common sense has survived each atrocity and I predict that it will also outlast the Paris massacre. Only a truly massive loss of life, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, will force the professionals to back off their deeply ingrained pattern of denying an Islamic component in the spate of attacks.

That pattern has the very consequential effect of shutting out the fears of ordinary voters, whose views thereby have negligible impact on policy. Worries about Shari’a, rape gangs, exotic diseases, and bloodbaths are dismissed with charges of “racism” and “Islamophobia,” as though name-calling addresses these real issues.

More surprising yet, the professionals respond to the public’s move to the right by themselves moving to the left, encouraging more immigration from the Middle East, instituting more “hate speech” codes to suppress criticism of Islam, and providing more patronage to Islamists. This pattern affects not just Establishment figures of the Left but more strikingly also of the Right (such as Angela Merkel of Germany); only Eastern European leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán permit themselves to speak honestly about the real problems.

Viktor Orbán's Hungary may not last long in the EU. Or maybe he is the group's future leader?

Viktor Orbán’s Hungary may not last long in the EU. Or maybe he is the group’s future leader?

Placing the murderous rampage in Paris into this context: it will likely move public sentiments substantially in one direction and Establishment policies in quite the opposite way, therefore ultimately having only a limited impact.Eventually, to be sure, voters’ views will make themselves heard, but decades later and more weakly than democratically should have been the case.

Mr. Pipes (, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, the cowardly media refuse to discuss Islamic ideology


We Need to Talk About Islam,  by Paul Cooper, Nov.14, 2015:

Yet again the sheer horror and barbarity of Islamic terror visits the streets of Paris. Yet again the synchronized response from the mainstream media has been lacklustre in nature, demonstrating pitiful levels of cowardice.

The intellect mainstream media bring to this scenario is meagrely constrained and limited to, “oh ok, they were ISIS.” Petrified and crippled by political correctness, they feign obliviousness which is cringe worthy, disconcerting and embarrassing all in perfect harmony. It is intolerable for media outlets to haphazardly dismiss ideological rationale behind this atrocity. People deserve more. The innocent people massacred in Paris deserve more.

Attributing the entire process of Islamic indoctrination, commitment to political Islamism and ultimately violent Jihadism as “just ISIS” may be blissful ignorance for many, however hazardous for all. Assigning the label ‘ISIS’ or ‘Daesh’ to anyone who is willing to engage in literal Islamic narratives debilitates opportunities to progress resolving the issue. The ideology and inherent complexities of literal Islamic narratives receive a ‘get out of jail’ free card.  It was “ISIS” we hear them say. Sure, perhaps they were ISIS affiliated but there was a journey they undertook to get there which must be openly discussed, not swept under the rug as would be the preference of our media and politicians.

The cowardly media and politicians – to the detriment of everyone – fervently refuse to give literal Islamic narratives the attention they desperately require. The issue of home grown Jihadists in particular must not be dismissed. The media remain petrified of mentioning the I word, Islam, and the M word, Muhammad. The regressive left sit in wait, ready to berate anyone willing to broach the issue as ‘Islamophobic”. The regressive left, forever a roadblock in achieving progress.

Will the media enlighten its viewers of the martyrdom concept within Islamic ideology. Most of the Islamic attackers detonated suicide vests. You would think the concept of martyrdom is something the media would perhaps broach in their 24 hour a day analysis. To question the concept of martyrdom would be to question and enquire on Islamic ideology itself, which of course political correctness paralysis prevents. People yet again sit around watching the television hearing how these attacks are ‘nothing to do with Islam’. Yet again everyone is expected to swallow the effluent the media regurgitate, that martyrdom – or anything for that matter – has nothing to do with the religion which has nothing to do with itself.

Are the media going to provide a platfrom for debate, one which pragmatically breakdowns and categorises intricacies involved in the journey to progress from a Muslim male just attending the local Mosque to becoming a violent Jihadist. No they won’t. Political correctness mandates we sit around like pathetic lame ducks waiting for the next attack to occur. Discussing Islamic ideology and its associated literal narratives would be just too Islamophobic wouldn’t it.

If a Christian man walked into a restaurant and prior to barbarically executing everyone stated, “in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit,” the entire political and media establishment would irrefutably state a Christian terror attack had occurred. Why is Islam entitled to an ISIS ‘get out of jail free card’? The next time such a Christian attack happens I’ll write an article about it, however I suspect you may be waiting a while.

There are thousands of Muslims in France embracing the attacks, claiming it as a victory for Allah. Social media is rife with gleeful celebrations of what occurred. Media willingness to provide coverage of the condemnations of the attacks is not in question. At the other end of the spectrum, to provide an impartial perspective they must cover the many people rejoicing. There are millions of people thinking this way. Isn’t it kind of important to talk about it?

Condemnation from prominent Islamic community groups continue to be disappointing, demonstrating the customary magnitude of ambiguity. Meagre statements such as, “this is not Islam” are so ambiguous it’s hard not to question their integrity. Is it “not Islam” because the attacks were not approved by representatives of their specific community, or is it “not Islam” because they condemn violence in no uncertain terms. In fact, have we ever witnessed Islamic community leaders unambiguously condemn violence in no uncertain terms and in any given scenario?

Ideology cannot be beaten with violence, of that I am sure. It will only be strengthened with violence. We need to address the core and fundamental ideology. As long as our cowardly media and politicians continue to avoid discussing Islamic ideology – in a manner in which you’d expect someone to avoid the bubonic plague – how can we address anything? You guessed it, we’ll sit around feebly waiting for the next appalling attack on our freedoms, which undoubtedly will have ‘nothing to do with Islam’.

The Historical Significance of November 13th in Islam


Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Nov. 14, 2015:

On November 13, 1918 the Allied troops occupied Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was the Caliphate, the Islamic State of its day.


Also see:

The Islamic State claims responsibility for Paris attacks

The Islamic State has issued a statement claiming responsibility for yesterdays’s terrorist attacks throughout the city of Paris. The message is titled, “A Statement on the Blessed Onslaught in Paris against the Crusader Nation of France.” The statement was issued in several languages, including Arabic, English, French and Russian. The English-language version can be seen below.

15-11-14-Islamic-State-claims-Paris-attacks-1024x2572In addition, the group has released audio readings of the message. In the English-language reading, the man appears to speak with an American accent.

“In a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah, a group of believers from the soldiers of the Caliphate (may Allah strengthen and support it) set out targeting the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe — Paris,” the body of the statement begins.

The message continues: “This group of believers were youth who divorced the worldly life and advanced towards their enemy hoping to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion, His Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and His allies. They did so in spite of His enemies. Thus, they were truthful with Allah — we consider them so — and Allah granted victory upon their hands and cast terror into the hearts of the crusaders in their very own homeland.”

The Islamic State does not provide precise details concerning the attackers. Its description matches, more or less, the information that can be gleaned from press reporting. Eight attackers wearing suicide vests assaulted targets throughout the city, including the Bataclan theater (where a band was playing), the Stade de France (a stadium where a soccer match was being played between France and Germany), as well as restaurants and other targets. The terrorists took hostages at the Bataclan, killing more than 100 people before police raided the building.

“And so eight brothers equipped with explosive belts and assault rifles attacked precisely chosen targets in the center of the capital of France,” the Islamic State says. “These targets included the Stade de France stadium during a soccer match — between teams of Germany and France, both of which are crusader nations — attended by the imbecile of France (Francois Hollande). The targets included the Bataclan theatre for exhibitions, where hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice. There were also simultaneous attacks on other targets in the tenth, eleventh, and eighteenth districts, and elsewhere.”

The Islamic State says Paris was “shaken beneath the crusaders’ feet, who were constricted by its streets,” and the attacks resulted in “the deaths of no less than two hundred crusaders and the wounding of even more.”

Officials have confirmed that at least seven of the eight attackers detonated their suicide belts before they could be apprehended or killed. “They detonated their explosive belts in the masses of the disbelievers after finishing all their ammunition,” the Islamic State says.

The statement ends with a warning: “Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris.”

The phrase “dare to curse our Prophet” may be a reference to Charlie Hebdo magazine, which was attacked by brothers backed by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

“Indeed, this is just the beginning,” the Islamic State says. “It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.”

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

Also see:

Geller: Muslims Declare War on France–’It Was a Bloodbath’

Thierry Chesnot/Getty Images

Thierry Chesnot/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Nov. 13, 2015:

High powered weapons, suicide bombers and grenades. This is war.

“Allahu akbar!” That all-too-familiar battle cry kicked off six Islamic acts of war on the people of France. Muslims set off on a murderous rampage in Paris Friday night, killing at least 166, including at least 100 concertgoers at a music hall featuring an American rock band. The death toll spread across six sites in the city.

Devout Muslims were celebrating the attacks on social media.

One of the apprehended jihadists reportedly stated, “I am from the Islamic State.” Hundreds of thousands of these savages have invaded the continent.

“Terrorist attacks of an unprecedented magnitude are in play in Paris. It’s horror,” French President François Hollande said. “We have mobilized all forces possible to neutralize the terrorists.”

At the concert hall, the merciless jihadis murdered their hostages one by one, as the non-Muslims begged for the lives of their loved ones. Paris police said that the siege ended when French forces killed at least two of the jihad murderers inside the hall.

Hollande ordered a state of emergency in Paris. He also closed the country’s borders. Too little, too late. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the subsequent murders at a Jewish grocery in Paris in January, what more warning did Hollande need?

The massacre took place at several different locations in Paris — near the site of the massacre of Muhammad cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo offices in January. The jihadis focused on what would be prestige targets for them. They murdered several people in a restaurant, as well as at the concert hall. Some were killed in suicide bombings – a hallmark of jihad attacks. There was another bombing near the Stade de France, north of Paris.

One eyewitness said: “I’ve seen two terrorists from my point of view with AK-47s entering the concert room and firing randomly into the crowd. People yelled and screamed.” This witness said that the Muslim murderers calmly reloaded their weapons, then began killing again: “It lasted for 10 minutes. 10 minutes. 10 horrific minutes where everyone was on the floor covering their heads. We heard so many gunshots. And the terrorists were very calm…and they reloaded three to four times their weapons.” This recalls the Allah-worshiping young man who stabbed four people at the University of California Merced last week.

The witness added:

They didn’t shout anything. They didn’t say anything. They were in masks. They were wearing black clothes… And they were shooting at people on the floor. And I was luckily at the top of the stage. The front of the stage. So people tried to escape…and I found an exit when the terrorists reloaded their guns. And I climbed on the stage and we found an exit. And when I went on the streets I see 20 to 25 bodies lying on the floor. And people were very badly injured with gunshot wounds.

Most chillingly of all, the witness said: “I have some friends who are still inside… who are hiding… they are hiding in some kind of room in the dark. They text me and they are very afraid.”

Despite all this horror, the European Union elites are bringing into Europe millions of these savages. I have warned for years about this coming jihad. For doing so, I was attacked, smeared, and marginalized. We were right about it all, and yet still my colleagues and I are blacklisted. Hundreds are dead, and the war has just begun. We did everything in our power to save lives. But the political, media, and academic elites aligned with the savages. And now hundreds more are dead in Paris — and you ain’t seen nothing yet.

This Paris jihad massacre casts into a new light the desire of New York State Senator Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to bring 1.5 million Muslim migrants from Syria to New York. Obama wants to accelerate the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S. I can promise you this: I will lead a march against this woman if she pursues this. All attendees will be required to bring pitchforks and torches. If she wants to kill New York State and bring these jihadis into the U.S., she better be prepared for a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Incredibly, Obama said today that the Islamic State (ISIS) is not getting stronger: “we have contained them.” He is either in an early stage of dementia or he is one of them. I submit that it is the latter. In either case, Americans must be ready: lock and load. It’s not just in Paris, it’s here: Garland, Texas, Chattanooga… yesterday, an Ohio Muslim was arrested for plotting to kill U.S. soldiers and bomb churches and schools.

“I’ll be proud when I shed American blood,” Muslim convert Terrence McNeil said, according to prosecutors. He allegedly posted messages advocating jihad against the United States: “I would gladly take part in an attack on this murderous regime and the people.” This was one of their jihad fighters in the US. And Ohio is crawling with them.

These are not idle threats. This is a world war. I have exposed hundreds of Islamic State social postings which name names and provide addresses and photos of U.S. soldiers here in the States, urging American Muslims to slaughter our boys and girls.

Right now, nothing is being done to stop jihad recruiting in U.S. mosques, even as several hundred young Muslims from the U.S. have gone to wage jihad for the Islamic State. And now they seek to wage jihad here at home.

In the wake of this jihad war in France, terror groups like the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold press conferences that their running dogs in the media will clamor to cover, hand-wringing about a non-existent “fear of reprisals” and “backlash” against innocent Muslims.

And the jihad machine steamrolls on.

The Muslim migrant stream into Europe is a Muslim invasion. Back in February, the Islamic State warned that they would send millions of Muslim fighters into Europe. They have made good on their every pledge. And now the attacks in Paris demonstrate that Europe is at war.

It’s coming here. Stop Muslim migrant immigration. Now.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

The War That Hasn’t Ended

Paris attackNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy,Nov. 13, 2015:

There is always the chance that the next attack will knock the scales from our eyes. Always the chance that we will realize the enemy is at war with us, even as we foolishly believe we can end the war by not fighting it, by surrendering.

As this is written, the death count in Paris is 158. That number will grow higher, and very many more will be counted among the wounded and terrorized.

“Allahu Akbar!” cried the jihadists as they killed innocent after French innocent. The commentators told us it means “God is great.” But it doesn’t. It means “Allah is greater!” It is a comparative, a cry of combative aggression: “Our God is mightier than yours.” It is central to a construction of Islam, mainstream in the Middle East, that sees itself at war with the West.

It is what animates our enemies.

Barack Obama tells us — harangues us — that he is the president who came to end wars. Is that noble? Reflective of an America that honors “our values”? No, it is juvenile.

In the real world, the world of aggression — not “micro-aggression” — you don’t get to end wars by pronouncing them over, or mistaken, or contrary to “our values.”

You end them by winning them . . . or losing them.

If you demonstrate that you are willing to lose, then you lose. If you sympathize with the enemy’s critique of the West on the lunatic theory that this will appease the enemy, you invite more attacks, more mass murder.

France is hoping the night’s bloodshed is done as it counts its dead. And perhaps it is for now. But the atrocities are not over, not even close.

In Paris, it has been but the blink of an eye since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, after which Western nations joined together in supposed solidarity, supporting the fundamental right to free expression.

That lasted about five minutes.

Intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic rationalized that, while we of course (ahem) champion free expression — “Je suis Charlie!” and all that — columnists and cartoonists who dare lampoon a totalitarian ideology are bringing the jihad on themselves.

It was a familiar story. In 2012, jihadists attacked an American compound in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three other officials. The president responded by . . . condemning an anti-Muslim video that had nothing to do with the attack, and by proclaiming that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Islamic supremacism killed Americans, and America’s president validated Islamic supremacism.

How did the French and the rest of the West react when jihadists attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris?

After a fleeting pro-Western pose, they condemned . . . themselves.

What happened when American commentators who had spent years studying Islamic-supremacist ideology warned that mainstream Muslim doctrine was fueling jihad against the West?

The Obama administration — the president and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton — reacted by targeting the messengers, not the aggressors.

Jihadist terror would be obfuscated by euphemisms like “violent extremism” and “workplace violence.” The critics of jihadist terror would be smeared as racist “Islamophobes.” Mrs. Clinton led the administration’s effort to portray examination of Islamic doctrine as hate speech, to brand commentary about radical Islam as illegal incitement.

Wouldn’t that be a betrayal of First Amendment free expression? If so, Mrs. Clinton declared, the government had other ways to suppress it. The administration, she said, would resort to extra-legal extortion: “old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

American government intimidation, not against the jihad but against opponents of the jihad. Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we don’t think we are worth defending? Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we are ripe for the taking?

Hard experience has taught us that when jihadists have safe haven, they attack the United States and our Western allies. But as ISIS and al Qaeda expand their safe haven in Syria and Iraq, we tell the world it is everyone else’s problem — the Kurds have to do the fighting, or the Yazidis, the Iraqis, the “rebels,” anyone but us.

As hundreds of thousands of refugees flee the region — many of them young, fighting-fit men whose potential terrorist ties cannot possibly be vetted — we encourage Europe to open its arms and borders to them, promising to open our own as well.

After all, to do otherwise would be to concede that the war is against us — and Obama is the president who “ends” war.

The enemy is not impressed. What Obama calls “ending” war the enemy sees as surrender, as the lack of a will to fight, much less to prevail.

So, as night follows day, the enemy attacked Paris tonight, yet again. Jihadists brazenly proclaimed that they were from Syria, spreading their jihad to France.

Obama responded by soft-peddling the atrocity as a “tragedy,” the acts of war as a “crime.”

A “crime” that tonight killed 158 people (and counting). A “crime” by “criminals” who vow more jihadist acts of war against Paris, Rome, London, Tel Aviv, and New York.

We did not ask for a war with jihadists. Years ago, they commenced a war of aggression against us. Pace Obama, you can’t end such a war by withdrawing, or by pretending it is just a crime. You end it by winning it or losing it.

The enemy senses that we are willing to lose it. Tonight, they pressed their advantage. It won’t be the last time.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

In Photos: Inside the Al Nusra Academy Training the Next Generation of Jihadis

Vice News, By Sally Hayden, Nov. 11, 2015:

In a classroom in northern Syria’s Aleppo province a teacher begins a lesson by saying: “Today we will learn about faith and beliefs.”

Abu Baser questions the assembled boys — all in khaki green — on the meaning of the word “faith,” before having them repeat: “The war gains belong to God and the messenger.”

This is the Lion Cubs Religious Academy, one of several schools run by al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the al Nusra Front. VICE News filmmaker Medyan Dairieh gained exclusive access to the group earlier this year, spending time with the militia’s current leadership and the younger generation being groomed to replace them.

His footage shows children singing songs with lyrics like: “Oh mother, don’t be sad, I’ve chosen the land of jihad. Wipe your tears, I only went to fight the Jews,” and “Our leader [Osama] bin Laden who scares America with the power of his faith and his PK gun.”

In unison, they later chorus together: “All the Christians and a message to America, your grave is in Syria, our Front is victorious.”

Boy from Idlib. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Boy from Idlib. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Not all of the children in the ‘Lion Cubs Religious Academy’ come from families affiliated with al Qaeda, but the majority do. Trained to believe dying in jihad will make them a martyr, they could join the tens of thousands of child soldiers being used and abused in conflicts around the world.

Abu Anas — a student recently arrived from Uzbekistan — is still learning Arabic. He told VICE News that he misses his relatives in his home country, but doesn’t miss Uzbekistan itself because “they don’t approve of jihad and they call us terrorists. They’re frightened by us. They don’t want jihad. They don’t want Allah’s laws.” Questioned again later, he says his father “died as a martyr,” but won’t disclose where.

Another classmate said he had been forced to attend the school because his family wanted him to train to be a mujahideen fighter.

The students of the 'Lion Cubs Religious Academy' go on a school trip. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

The students of the ‘Lion Cubs Religious Academy’ go on a school trip. (Photo by Medyan Dairieh)

Al Nusra now control territories in Aleppo and Idlib provinces. The group is currently fighting on three fronts: against the Syrian regime, Kurdish forces, and the Islamic State.

“Youths will establish a caliphate, following the prophet’s traditions, and they will carry the message of jihad,” the children’s teacher tells VICE News.

Growing up surrounded by war, the young boys still experience many of the fixtures of a regular childhood. They play sports. They go on a school trip to an old amusement park where they push bumper cars rendered static without electricity. The children swim in a pool, some diving confidently, some clinging to rubber rings.

Many of the children have seen horrific acts. A boy from Idlib said: “I witnessed the Nusayris (Alawites) kill the men and slaughter the women and children.”

“There are many without any religious knowledge,” he continued. “I’ll teach them and invite them, but if they don’t listen, then I’ll use the sword.”

Read more


Also see:

Today in History: Suleiman “The Magnificent” fails to capture Vienna, turns to attacking the West (1529)

page-image (3)
The Rebel, by John Robson, Oct. 15, 2015:

On Oct. 15, 1529, Suleiman “The Magnificent” began a retreat from Vienna which his armies had just failed to capture.

So he turned to attacking the West in the Mediterranean, leaving it to his successors to again besiege Vienna in 1683. He also imposed a rigid law code on the Ottoman Empire that contributed to its long slow agonizing decline.

In the West rulers are considered great if they defend their own people not if they attack others, and if they respect laws arising from the people. The Ottomans would certainly have been much better off if they’d used the same criteria.

Our Lady of Victory

UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 7, 2015:

Today, October 7th, the free West celebrates and remembers that on this date in 1571 the last great naval battle of oared ships took place in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece).  Known as the Battle of Lepanto – where the Muslims had their fleet – this was the first defeat of the Muslim Turks at sea by Christian forces.


In the 16th century, the Islamic Caliphate – the Ottoman Empire – was continuing it’s incursion and expansion into Western lands, including the Mediterranean and more of Europe.

Caliph Suleiman ruled the Caliphate from 1520 to 1566, and was followed by Selim II who ruled until 1574.

In May 1565, the Ottomans laid siege to the island of Malta (due south of Sicily) with 250 ships carrying 40,000 Muslim fighters.  Malta was defended by 700 Knights of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem (Knights Hospitallers) and approximately 8,000 Maltese troops.  For four months the Christian forces defended Malta and inflicted large casualties on the Ottoman Turks, who finally fled when reinforcements arrived.  Thereafter, the Knights carried the title the “Knights of Malta.”

The Battle of Cyprus

In the spring of 1570, the 4th Ottoman-Venetian war began when the Muslim Turks attacked Cyprus with 70,000 men.  The Venetians appealed to Pope Pius V to come to their defense.

The Christian defenders of Cyprus were outnumbered by a margin of almost 7 to 1.  The city of Nicosia held for nearly two months but, having been reduced to 500 soldiers, surrendered.

Venetian soldiers in Famagusta fought on for nearly a year, but on August 5, 1571, Cyprus fell.

The Venetians agreed to surrender terms offered by the Turkish commander, Lala Mustafa, who agreed to give them safe passage to Crete on Turkish ships.  Instead, the Venetians were stripped of their clothes, chained to the oars of the Turkish ships, and forced to row.

The Muslims beheaded the Venetian commanders and hung their heads on the mast of their ships.

On August 17, 1571, The Venetian governor/commander, Marco Antonio Bragadin, was humiliated, tortured, and flayed alive.  Mustafa had Bragadin’s body stuffed with hay and hung on the mast of his ship.

On May 25, 1571, while these battles were raging in Cyprus, Pope Pius V formed the Holy League with forces from the Papal States, the Habsburg States in Italy and Spain, monarchies of Tuscany, Savoy and elsewhere, the Knights of Malta, and others, in order to defend Cyprus and push back the Islamic forces.

The Battle of Lepanto

In September 1571, the Holy League’s fleet assembled at Messina, Sicily with 206 galleys and 6 smaller ships, manned by 40,000 sailors carrying approximately 27,000 soldiers.  The Holy League sailed for Corfu on September 16th with John of Austria commanding (in the center), Agostino Barbarigo on the left, Italy’s Admiral Giovanni Andrea Doria on the right, and, from Spain, Álvaro de Bazán in reserve.

The Muslim fleet was commanded by Ali Pasha (center), Alexandria’s governor, Mohammed Saulak (right), and the Pasha of Algiers Uluch Ali on the left.  The Turkish fleet flew the green standard with the word “Allah” embroidered over 29,000 times on it.

The Holy League’s Battle Standard was given to them by Pope Pius V and carried the image of the crucified Jesus on the Cross on it.


On the eve of battle – October 6th – Priests on the Holy League’s vessels held Mass, heard confessions, and prayed with the men.  Knowing the Turks had never been defeated on the sea, the men of the Holy League prayed the Rosary and asked Mary, the Mother of God, to pray for them.

Across Europe, people had been praying for months, and the Pope called for all Christians to pray the Rosary for victory.

It is said that on the day of battle, John of Austria went from ship to ship with a crucifix encouraging the men to keep their faith strong in the face of this impending engagement.

The tactics of the day were to engage the enemy ship to ship, lash them together, and fight close hand to hand combat.

On October 7, 1571, the Battle of Lepanto began with the Holy League’s guns ripping down the masts of Turkish ships and doing great damage before the fleets came in close range.

John of Austria’s Real and Ali Pasha’s Sultana – the flagships for each force – collided together.  Fierce fighting ensued and finally subsided when Ali Pasha was shot dead and the Holy League standard was raised over theSultana. Even though the Muslim center was collapsing, the battle raged on.

In the end, the Christians were victorious.  The Holy league captured 117 galleys and thousands of men, liberated over 12,000 enslaved Christians, and sank or burned about four dozen enemy galleys.

Across Europe celebrations ensued as news of the victory spread throughout the land.  Great works of art were commissioned to memorialize the victory at Lepanto.


The Church declared October 7th the Feast Day of Our Lady of Victory, which today is also called the Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, to honor what many believe were the prayers of Mary interceding on behalf of the Holy League and the forces of Liberty.

Miguel de Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, was wounded in the battle.  He wrote the Battle of Lepanto was “the most noble and memorable event that past centuries have seen.”

While Venice later surrendered to the Islamic fleet in 1573, the victory at the Battle of Lepanto ensured the Islamic domination of the Mediterranean was over for the time being.  It also gave Europe a much needed boost in morale after centuries of war with the invading Muslims.


Since Mohammed first launched jihad in the early 7th century, the free Christian West has been at war with the Islamic forces who continue to kill and impose slavery on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  Were it not for key victories against the Islamic armies over the last 1400 years, the lamp of freedom would be dim today.

The first war America fought after our Revolution was against the Muslim (Barbary states), when Thomas Jefferson ordered the Marines to deal with the Islamic forces which were capturing American vessels on the seas and taking Americans prisoner.  America defeated the Muslims in these now-famous engagements But we have forgotten our history.

Today, the world watches the continued incursion by Muslim forces into sovereign nations where tens of thousands are murdered in gruesome deaths.  Women are systematically raped and disfigured.  Homosexuals are thrown from buildings to their deaths.  Nations are being overthrown.  From Central and East Africa to the Philippines to Thailand, across Europe and throughout the Middle East and Asia.  The armies of Mohammed are again marching to conquer the globe.

Their stated goal:  to re-establish the Caliphate and impose Sharia (Islamic Law) on the world.

In Europe and America, we are told – especially by political and religious leaders – that we should be more tolerant of the Muslim faith which, they say, is a “religion of peace.”

Today, October 7th, we remember and honor all of those who fought for liberty against the forces of evil and slavery.  We remember the prayers that delivered the Holy League a great victory over the Ottoman Turks.

And we pray that Liberty will go back on the offensive where it belongs.


h/t Creeping Sharia

Also see:

Europe’s Migrant Crisis Is Simply Muslim History vs. Western Fantasy

Progressive Europe erased or rewrote its own history. Now they can’t recognize an invasion by people to whom history is everything.

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, September 29, 2015:

The world as understood by Islamic nations varies wildly from the Western nations’ understanding of the world. Whereas Muslims see the world through the lens of history, the West has jettisoned or rewritten history to suit its ideologies.

This dichotomy of Muslim and Western thinking is evident everywhere. When the Islamic State declared that it will “conquer Rome” and “break its crosses,” few in the West realized that those are the verbatim words and goals of Islam’s founder and his companions as recorded in Muslim sources — words and goals that prompted over a thousand years of jihad on Europe.

Most recently, the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years. Not only are Mideast and Asian regions included, but the map includes European lands: Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, parts of Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, and Cyprus.

The reason for this is simple. According to Islamic law, once a country has been conquered (or “opened,” as the euphemistic Arabic words it), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity.

This, incidentally, is the real reason Muslims despise Israel. The motivation is not sympathy for the Palestinians — if it was, neighboring Arab nations would’ve absorbed them long ago, just as they would be absorbing all of today’s Muslim refugees. No, Israel is hated because the descendants of “apes and pigs” — according to the Koran — dare to rule land that was once “opened” by jihad and therefore must be returned to Islam. (Read more about Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon to understand the source of Islamic rage.)

All of the aforementioned European nations are seen as being currently “occupied” by Christian “infidels” and in need of “liberation.” This is why jihadi organizations refer to terrorist attacks on such countries as “defensive jihads.”One rarely hears about Islamic designs on European nations because they are large and blocked together, altogether distant from the Muslim world. Conversely, tiny Israel is in the heart of the Islamic world, hence it has received most of the jihadi attention: it was a more realistic conquest. But now that the “caliphate” has been reborn and is expanding before a paralytic West, dreams of reconquering portions of Europe — if not through jihad, then through migration — are becoming more plausible, perhaps more so than conquering Israel.

Because of their historical experiences with Islam, some central and east European nations are aware of Muslim aspirations. Hungary’s prime minister even cited his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule (in the guise of the Ottoman Empire) as a reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering. But for more “enlightened” Western nations — that is, for idealistic nations that reject or rewrite history according to their subjective fantasies — Hungary’s reasoning is unjust, inhumane, and racist.

To be sure, most of Europe has experience with Islamic depredations. As late as the 17th century, even Iceland was being invaded by Muslim slave traders. Roughly 800 years earlier, in 846, Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim raiders.

Some of the Muslims migrating to Italy vow to do the same today, and Pope Francis acknowledges it — yet he still suggests that “you can take precautions, and put these people to work.”

We’ve seen this sort of thinking before: the U.S. State Department cited a lack of “job opportunities” as reason for the existence of the Islamic State.

Perhaps because the UK, Scandinavia, and North America were never conquered and occupied by the sword of Islam — unlike the southeast European nations that are rejecting Muslim refugees — they feel free to rewrite history according to their subjective ideals. Specifically, they stress that historic Christianity is bad and all other religions and people are good. Indeed, books and courses on the “sins” of Christian Europe from the Crusades to colonialism abound. (Most recently, a book traced the rise of Islamic supremacism in Egypt to the disciplining of a rude Muslim girl by a Christian nun.)

This “new history” – which claims that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians — has metastasized everywhere, from high school to college and from Hollywood to the news media, institutions which are becoming increasingly harder to distinguish from one another. When U.S. President Barack Obama condemned medieval Christians as a way to relativize Islamic State atrocities — or at best to claim that religion, any religion, isnever the driving force of violence — he was merely being representative of the mainstream way history is taught in the West.

Even good, authoritative books of history contribute to this distorted thinking. While such works may mention “Ottoman expansion” into Europe, the Islamic element is omitted. Turks are portrayed as just another competitive people, out to carve a niche for themselves in Europe with motivations no different than, say, the Austrians, their rivals. That the “Ottomans” were operating under the distinctly Islamic banner of jihad, just like the Islamic State is today, is never made clear.

Generations of this false history have led the West to think that being suspicious or judgmental of Muslims is unacceptable, and that Muslims need to be accommodated. Perhaps then, they’ll like the West.

Such is progressive wisdom.

Meanwhile, in schools across much of the Muslim world, children are being indoctrinated into glorifying and reminiscing about the jihadi conquests of yore — conquests by the sword and in the name of Allah. While the progressive West demonizes European/Christian history — when I was in elementary school, Christopher Columbus was a hero, when I got into college, he became a villain — Mehmet the Conqueror, whose atrocities against Christian Europeans make the Islamic State look like boy scouts, is praised every year in “secular” Turkey on the anniversary of the savage sack of Constantinople.

The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that today Muslims are entering the West unfettered in the guise of refugees. They refuse to assimilate with the “infidels,” and form enclaves — in Islamic terminology, ribats – that serve as frontier posts to wage jihad against the infidel one way or another.

This in not conjecture. The Islamic State is intentionally driving the refugee phenomenon, and has promised to send half a million people — mostly Muslims — into Europe. It claims that 4,000 of these refugees are its own operatives:

Just wait. … It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.

It is often said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. What happens to those who rewrite history in a way to demonize their ancestors while whitewashing the crimes of their ancestors’ enemies? The result is before us. History is not repeating itself; sword-waving Muslims are not militarily conquering Europe. Rather, they are being allowed to walk right in.

Migration as Jihad


Published on Sep 15, 2015 by Political Islam

Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.
In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.