Why It’s So Hard To Prosecute Islamists And Keep A Free Society

15550797688_530368b89b_o

Anjem Choudary’s case exemplifies the difficulties we in the West face in dealing with homegrown Islamic radicalism.

The Federalist, by M. G. Oprea, Aug. 23, 2016:

The British Muslim “hate preacher” Anjem Choudary has finally been convicted after 20 years of preaching fundamentalist Islam aimed at radicalizing young Muslims and encouraging them to engage in terrorist activities. Last week, he, along with Mohammed Rahman, was found guilty of inviting support for ISIS in speeches and lessons posted online. Choudary’s case, and his long history of Salafist extremism, exemplifies the difficulties that we in the West face in dealing with homegrown Islamic radicalism.

Choudary, a British citizen born to Pakistani parents, has spent two decades working toward global Islamic domination. These are his words. He wants Islamic law to spread throughout the world, and told the Washington Post in 2014 “We believe there will be complete domination of the world by Islam.” He has also said that “Britain belongs to Allah.”

Choudary founded multiple Islamist and Wahhabist organizations in England, all of which were eventually banned. He has connections with numerous other Salafist and Islamist groups and is a known leader of “dark networks” that stretch across Europe and seek to radicalize young Muslims. He has praised terrorists, including the 9/11 attackers, and proclaimed they are in paradise. He has been friendly with a top ISIS figure and executioner, who at the time was part of the terrorist group Sharia4Belgium, and is connected to more than 100 British terrorists, and many terror plots.

Terrorism’s Victims Include Freedom of Speech

But somehow Choudary has managed to skirt the law all these years. A lawyer until 2002, he knew how to step up to the line of criminality without crossing it. Although his influence on European Muslims is well-known and -documented, he managed to skate by on technicalities of the law, because he hadn’t engaged in terrorist activities himself, nor was it proven he had directly sent people to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS.

What finally allowed authorities to arrest him last year and convict him this month was an oath he signed to ISIS’ leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in conjunction with speeches posted online that called on Muslims to join ISIS. As a prohibited organization, membership in ISIS is considered a criminal offence. British authorities convicted him of “inviting support for a proscribed organization,” under Terrorism Act 2000.

Choudary’s case raises questions of how far freedom of speech extends, and what ought to be done with terrorists once convicted. Although freedom of speech in Britain is a long-established common law right, in recent years it has suffered many setbacks. A Reason magazine article from last year highlighted the policing and punishment of Twitter users and journalists, as well as advertisers (a notable case was an ad banned in London for supposedly body-shaming women by depicting a fit woman in a bikini).

But what about here in the United States? People often ask what we should be doing at home to protect our country from Islamist terrorism. While presidential candidate Donald Trump would point solely to immigration, this misses the glaring fact that many Islamist terrorists were born in America or came as young children. This list includes Omar Mateen (Orlando), Faisal Mohammed (University of California-Merced), the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston Marathon), Syed Farook (San Bernardino), Nadir Soofi (Garland, Texas), and Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood).

Terrorists like these are drawn to Salafist Islam either in their communities and mosques or on the Internet. It isn’t always clear what the authorities can legally do beyond monitoring radical clerics and mosques and looking for connections between radicalized individuals and groups. How far can they go in policing what Islamists are preaching?

It Would Be Difficult to Prosecute Choudary in America

Freedom of speech is perhaps the most crucial right in a free society. There’s a reason it was the first right enshrined in the Bill of Rights: it’s meant to protect citizens from government attempts to silence dissent and regulate ideas and messages. In America, a country with arguably the most robust free speech protections, there are only a few exceptions to this First Amendment right. These include speech others own, child pornography, commercial speech, obscenity, and fighting words. None of these, however, are applicable to combatting Islamists, who are essentially supporting terrorism without providing terrorists with direct material support like guns, bombs, or money.

The one type of unprotected speech that would be applicable in a case like Choudary’s is incitement to violence. Speech that advocates force is unprotected, but only if its intention is to produce “imminent lawless action” and is likely to succeed. This could potentially apply to the sermons of Salafist imams, which, if encouraging people to fight with ISIS, are promoting lawless action. However, proving that they’re likely to lead to imminent action is more difficult.

Expressing even the most reprehensible views is protected by the First Amendment, including having a Ku Klux Klan parade or arguing for the overthrow of the government. So an Islamist imam could preach beliefs whose natural conclusion might be violence, but so long as he isn’t calling on a crowd to go out right away and commit terrorism, his speech is protected. This is why we may not have been able to prosecute a man like Choudary here in America.

Another way unprotected free speech comes into play is “true threats.” This recently made news when a Missouri woman was arrested for retweeting Twitter posts calling for the murder of U.S. law enforcement officials. The tweet contained names, addresses and phone numbers. Federal prosecutors argue that her retweets are tantamount to active support of ISIS, and charged the woman with conspiracy and transmitting a threat across state lines. Her defense, based on First Amendment grounds, argues the charges are unconstitutionally vague, once again illustrating the tension between free speech and national security.

Prisons Aren’t a Great Place for Islamists, Either

Once a conviction is made, as with Choudary, the problems don’t end there. Choudary faces up to ten years in prison. But what will he do once behind bars? Prison systems have become notorious in Europe and America for breeding radical Muslims, so a man like Choudary poses a threat inside as well as outside of prison.

Islamists in prison are treated like “aristocracy,” according to an audit of French prisons. When Salah Abdeslam, one of the Paris attackers, was arrested and sent to the Fleury-Mérogis prison he was “welcomed as the messiah,” according to one guard there. That same audit also found jihadi inmates can easily communicate with the outside world, including Syria.

So officials face a difficult decision between keeping Islamists like Choudary in the general population, where they can influence and indoctrinate other men, or concentrating Choudary and others like him in cell blocks so they don’t have access to non-radicalized inmates. This, of course, has its own dangers, namely that these men may plan future attacks and terrorist operations together. The third option, total isolation, is widely unpopular in places like Britain and France, where it is, perhaps correctly, seen as inhumane and cruel.

Choudary’s stay in prison will last a maximum of ten years. Then what? Does he get out in a few years after having been active in prison, and go on as he did before? Perhaps this time he’ll be more careful so as not to get caught. Some countries are working on de-radicalization programs, but their success has been dubious.

Choudary’s case typifies the difficulties the Western world faces in combatting radicalization. As a country that is fundamentally based on concepts of liberty and freedom of speech and of association, our principles and constitutionally protected rights sometimes run up against threats to national security. This is the great challenge we will face in the fight against Islamist ideology and homegrown radicalization in the years ahead. For a sense of the challenges to come, we need only look to Europe, where that fight is well underway.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

Also see:

Heat Street: Did ‘Ill’ Suspect Of Somali Descent In UK Attack Study Terror?

russell-sqHeat Street, By Miles Goslett, Aug. 5, 2016:

The British authorities have said Zakaria Bulhan – the 19-year-old Norwegian man of Somali descent arrested on suspicion of murdering American tourist Darlene Horton (pictured above) in London on Wednesday night and stabbing five others – does not necessarily have any links to Islamic terrorism.

However, Heat Street has found evidence that a person using the same name – Zakaria Bulhan – has listed at least one book advocating violent jihadism in their personal account on the Good Reads website since 2014.

Update: An exhaustive search of UK records by Heat Street shows there appears to be only one person in the whole of Britain with the name Zakaria Bulhan. He is registered as living at an address in Tooting, South London. 

It is a near-certainty that this is the same person arrested by police and said to have “no links” to terrorism, but merely to be mentally ill.

Between January 2014 and September 2015, Zakaria Bulhan flagged up on Good Reads three books on Islam and Islamist theology as texts they intended to read.

The most interesting, and the one that shows that at the age of 17 this person was at the very least exploring a book which is very clear on urging violent jihadism as a duty of Muslims, is Riyad-us-Saliheen, a 13th century text.

It is a text widely read by devout Muslims which is discussed at a counter-jihad website called Counter Jihad Report:

Riyad-us Saliheen

According to the site, this is what Riyad-us-Saliheen has to say about jihad (emphasis added):

On Jihad:

  • The Hadith points out the superiority of fighting in the way of Allah. The moment one fights for Allah’s sake, be it in the early morning or the evening, is better than the world and all that is in it. Chapter 234:1287-1288
    It [Haddith] brings into focus the excellence of fighting Jihad with one’s wealth and life for the sake of Allah. Chapter 234:1289
  • This Hadith highlights the excellence of observing Ribat [guarding the Islamic frontier for the sake of Allah] and fighting in the way of Allah. It also highlights the insignificance of this world and the great reward in the Hereafter which can be attained through Jihad. Chapter 234:1290
  • The example cited here [in this Haddith] means that so long a Mujahid is engaged in Jihad, he is like a person who keeps himself occupied in Salat [prayer] at night and observes Saum [fasting] in the day time. The action of such a person can be equal in reward to the conduct of a Mujahid. Thus, in special situations Jihad is the most meritorious act. A worshipper cannot attain that reward for his worship which a Mujahid achieves in Jihad. Chapter 234:1298
  • This Hadith also stresses the fact that if a person is unable to take part in Jihad due to illness, for example, he should then provide such material to a Mujahid which is helpful for him in Jihad. If he does so, he will be eligible to the same reward which is due on Jihad. This would also be a source of increase and growth in his possessions. Chapter 234:1308
  • Jannat-ul-Firdaus is the highest portion of Jannah [Paradise]. The allocation of this portion [of Paradise] to the martyrs is a proof that Jihad is very much liked by Allah. Chapter 234:1319
  • What this Hadith really means is that when the situation calls for Jihad then the foremost priority of a Muslim should be Jihad. In such an event his passion for touring the world should yield to the spirit of Jihad against the infidels and then he must with his full force fight against the enemy. Chapter 234:1345
  • This Hadith means that one who neither takes part in Jihad nor provides arms to a Mujahid nor looks after the families of the Mujahidun during their absence, is guilty of crimes for which he is punished in this world by Allah. It is, therefore, the duty of the Muslim Ummah [community] that it should in no way neglect the obligation of Jihad and all its requirements; otherwise it will suffer punishment in this world and in the next. Chapter 234:1348
  • This Hadith mentions three categories of Jihad, namely Jihad with wealth, Jihad with one’s life and Jihad by speech. One should make Jihad as is warranted by the situation one is confronted with. That is, where a Muslim is required to sacrifice his life, he must sacrifice his life; where he is required to sacrifice his wealth, he should spend wealth; and where he is required to make Jihad by means of his speech, he should do it by speech. One should not hesitate to spend for the sake of Allah what is required by the situation. Chapter 234:1349
  • The Ahadith mentioned in this chapter make the importance of Jihad and the reason for so much stress on it abundantly clear. These also show how great a crime it is to ignore it. It is very unfortunate indeed that present-day Muslims are guilty of renouncing Jihad in every part of the world. May Allah help us to overcome this negligence. Chapter 234:1352

***

CJR: I’m very pleased  to see my resource section on Islamic texts being put to good use! Credit for the analysis of seven Islamic texts widely read by Muslims goes to the authors of Mapping  Sharia, Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi who reported in the Summer 2011 issue of Middle East Quarterly about a new survey that found that “51% of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Sharia-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim.”  Another 30% of mosques in the United States “had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence,” while only “19% had no violent texts at all.”

Also see:

New ‘Terror Jihad Reader Series’ Lays Bare The True Nature And Danger Of The Islamic State

2623784173CENTER LAUNCHES NEW ‘TERROR JIHAD READER SERIES,’

LAYS BARE THE TRUE NATURE AND DANGER OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

Center for Security Policy, August 2, 2016:

As the savage attacks claimed by the Islamic State (IS) seem to follow on one another at an ever-increasing pace, too many still do not understand what this group is, where it came from, who its leaders are, and most important of all, why they do what they do. Whether the IS-controlled territory called “The Caliphate” survives in its current form or not, the totalitarian ideology Islamic supremacists call Sharia and the jihad it impels will cause adherent fighters, followers and supporters around the world to fight on and, unless decisively defeated, to continue to metastasize.

In the absence of such a defeat, the Islamic State continues to add new groups to its growing franchise. And individual jihadists from nearly every continent continue to step forward to pledge allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as they carry out murderous attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, too many at the top levels of U.S. national security, the media, academia and other elites still fail to understand this enemy, typically approaching it as a mere “terrorist organization” or purveyor of “violent extremism.” In particular, unless and until there is a much better appreciation for the phenomenon that is spawning and intensifying Islamic supremacism as practiced by IS, Americans and other freedom-loving peoples will be in mortal peril.

In the hope of enabling such an appreciation, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the first monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series”: Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America, by Ilana Freedman. This publication delves into IS’ inspirational Islamist identity and describes the real threat it consequently poses to the United States. Ms. Freedman brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and sober analysis in order to define this enemy accurately and illuminate its abilities, intentions and motivations.

Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez introduces the Center’s new book

Speaking on the timeliness of this critical new book, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney noted:

For much of the past fifteen years, the United States has been preoccupied with the threat posed by al Qaeda (AQ). More recently, attention has preponderantly shifted to what began as an AQ splinter group, the Islamic State. Ilana Freeman’s new monograph, Jihad!, makes plain why the object of this new focus needs both to be better understood, utterly crushed and recognized as just one part of the global jihad movement – which must get the same treatment. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who seek to be our next Commander-in-Chief and charged with protecting this country against such enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the Center’s other publications, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

SafariScreenSnapz006

For additional information about the stealthy counterpart to the violent jihad addressed by the Terror Jihad Reader Series, see the Center for Security Policy’s “Civilization Jihad Reader Series.”

PDF of the newly released monograph

NEW ISIS Magazine Explicitly Targets Christians

dbq16

The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, August 2, 2016:

Since the beginning of June, jihadis have executed terror attacks outside of Iraq and Syria every 84 hours. This includes mass casualty attacks in Nice, France, the murder of a pregnant woman in Germany, and the beheading of a Catholic priest in Normandy.

After these atrocities, ISIS issued numerous statements but also just released the 15th issue of its official magazine Dabiq entitled “BREAK THE CROSS.” The issue focuses on taking the war to the Christian world.

Below is a summary of the key takeaways. The full issue is available on my website: ISIS-Dabiq-Magazine-Issue-15 (pdf)

ISIS: BREAK THE CROSS

dabiq-cover-768x1091The Islamic State released the fifteenth issue of their English-language Jihadi magazine, Dabiq, this past week, titled “Break the Cross.”

In the first issue following the attacks in Orlando, Nice, Normandy, Wurzburg, and Ansbach, ISIS orders even more attacks to be launched without delay.

In an effort to delegitimize the politically correct narrative that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS, they repeatedly clarify that their message is: There is no God but Allah, who “is to be worshipped alone via love, hope, fear, supplication, prostration, sacrificial slaughter, etc.”

Further, ISIS lays out point by point why they hate us and why they fight us:

  • Because we are disbelievers who reject the oneness of Allah;
  • because our secular liberal societies permit things prohibited by Allah;
  • because of the crimes we commit against Islam, such as mocking the prophets and burning the Quran; and, finally,
  • because of the crimes we commit against Muslims, such as bombing and invading their lands.

However, contrary to popular belief, they clarify that American foreign policy is not the sole, let alone main, reason that they attack us:

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.

ISIS will not stop fighting until the West is willing to accept one of three options: conversion, submission by paying the jizyah (infidel tax), or death.

More than simply explaining why they fight us, this issue provides strategies on how best to bring down the West. For example, they suggest Muslim children learn infidel languages in order to spy on enemy communications or execute operations on infidel ground.

They also mention constructing a new language that would be used to “encrypt communication back and forth between [a jihadi] and the Islamic State foreign operations leadership before executing [an] attack against surveyed targets.”

As done in previous issues, Dabiq again stresses the importance of attacking the non-believer at home if you are not able to travel to the Islamic State, hitting the “Crusaders” where it hurts most, behind enemy lines, on their own territory. Finally, they give advice for future attacks, saying to keep their plans simple and effective, attacking as soon as possible.

The Islamic State further legitimizes their killing of civilians by arguing that every nation that claims to be ruled by the will of the people “has implicated their own populations in the crimes their militaries commit against the Muslim nation,” strengthening the Muslim obligation to target them.

This is a tactical deviation from previous issues, which placed a heavy emphasis on attacking U.S. law enforcement and military targets. ALL infidels are now a target, meaning that any large gathering of people — a sporting event, a movie theater, a mall — is  vulnerable, making the job of our law enforcement officers that much more difficult.

FROM THE FOREWORD:

After the attacks in Orlando (USA), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Magnanville, Nice, and Normandy (France), and Würzburg and Ansbach (Germany) led to the martyrdom of twelve soldiers of the Caliphate and the deaths and injuries of more than six hundred Crusaders, one would expect the cross-worshipers and democratic pagans of the West to pause and contemplate the reasons behind the animosity and enmity held by Muslims for Westerners and even take heed and consider repentance by abandoning their infidelity and accepting Islam.

But the fever and delusion caused by sin, superstition, and secularism have numbed what is left of their minds and senses.

Their hedonic addictions and heathenish doctrines have enslaved them to false gods including their clergy, their legislatures, and their lusts.

As for worshiping the Creator alone and following His Final Messenger, then that is beyond their consideration.

Instead, they wage war against what entails both their welfare in the worldly life and their salvation in the Hereafter.

They wage war against their Creator, His word, His law, His Messenger, and His slaves.

And they shamelessly confess their disbelief in His wisdom, mercy, and justice, by thinking that the Lord would abandon His religion and His slaves to the tyranny of His enemies and their evilness.

And despite their wretched condition of ignorance and arrogance, we take this occasion of multiple massacres inflicted upon their citizens and interests to call them once again to the religion of pure monotheism, truth, mercy, justice, and the sword.

Between the release of this issue of Dabiq and the next slaughter to be executed against them by the hidden soldiers of the Caliphate – who are ordered to attack without delay – the Crusaders can read into why Muslims hate and fight them, why pagan Christians should break their crosses, why liberalist secularists should return to the fitrah (natural human disposition), and why skeptical atheists should recognize their Creator and submit to Him.

In essence, we explain why they must abandon their infidelity and accept Islam, the religion of sincerity and submission to the Lord of the heavens and the earth.

They will find in the pages of this issue the details of our message to them on the issues of Christianity, feminism, liberalism, and atheism. . . . .

why-they-hate-us-pg

Also see:

Many of the lists are Christians involved in student welcome ministries or who are helping Muslim refugees settle in the United States.

According to the Pentagon, the worldwide jihad “kill lists” were updated on July 24 and includes Americans living in 19 states.

Video: Robert Spencer at the Reagan Ranch Center on why it matters to call it “Islamic terrorism”

RS062516Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, August 1, 2016:

On June 25, 2016, I spoke at the Young America’s Foundation’s Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California, on why Barack Obama is wrong, and it is vitally important to call Islamic jihad terrorism “Islamic jihad terrorism.”

ISIS: Orlando Was ‘Hate Crime’ and Terror, But Stop Calling Attacks ‘Senseless Violence’

A mourner reacts at a makeshift memorial for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting outside the Orlando Regional Medical Center on June 28, 2016, in Orlando, Fla. (Phelan M. Ebenhack via AP)

A mourner reacts at a makeshift memorial for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting outside the Orlando Regional Medical Center on June 28, 2016, in Orlando, Fla. (Phelan M. Ebenhack via AP)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, July 31, 2016:

In a new issue of their English-language Dabiq magazine, ISIS battles against the term “senseless violence” being used to describe their attacks, stressing that all of their crimes make perfect jihad sense.

One of the articles in the 82-page “Break the Cross” issue, titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” notes that “shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence.”

“A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah,” the article states. “But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense.”

“Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense.”

Aballa, who killed a French police commander and his wife during his June 13 attack on their suburban home, said he was following the directive of ISIS caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for jihadists in their home countries to kill the infidels in their homes.

“The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!” the ISIS piece continues. “Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool.”

“The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be ‘politically incorrect.’”

ISIS singles out “exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt,” called “people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative.”

The article details the reasons why ISIS hates the West: for being disbelievers who “reject the oneness of Allah,” because “your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted,” because the West includes an “atheist fringe,” to “punish you for your transgressions against our religion,” for  “crimes against the Muslims” such as drone strikes, and for “invading our lands.”

“Although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary,” the article adds, because “even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”

“Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.”

ISIS stresses that the “gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality.”

“As much as some liberal journalist would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters with no logic behind our course of action, the fact is that we continue to wage – and escalate – a calculated war that the West thought it had ended several years ago,” the articles continues.

“So you can continue to believe that those ‘despicable terrorists’ hate you because of your lattes and your Timberlands, and continue spending ridiculous amounts of money to try to prevail in an unwinnable war, or you can accept reality and recognize that we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide.”

The ISIS piece is not bylined, but British jihadist Siddhartha Dhar, dubbed the terror group’s new Jihadi John, dropped a famous latte reference in a bylined booklet last year encouraging Westerners to come to the Islamic State — assuring would-be jihadis that they could find Western comforts in the caliphate including Snickers, Kit-Kat and “some of the best lattes and cappuccinos around.”

Much of the Dabiq issue is focused on telling Westerners what fate awaits if they don’t convert to Islam, with multiple lengthy testimonials from converts from Christianity to Islam and a special focus on slamming the Catholic Church. ISIS has made the conquest of Rome by 2020 a bedrock of their apocalyptic plans.

The terror group said in the foreword that the issue was intended to be reading for Christians, liberal secularists and atheists “between the release of this issue ofDabiq and the next slaughter to be executed against them by the hidden soldiers of the Caliphate – who are ordered to attack without delay.”

Many pages are devoted to picking apart the Bible and branding the Holy Trinity as polytheism. “Would you follow your parents and ancestors if you knew they were walking into a fire? It is clear from their doctrines and the history of their ‘Church’ that they had neither guidance nor comprehension in religion,” the magazine argues.

ISIS takes hits at freedoms enjoyed by women in the West, at people campaigning for the legalization of marijuana, and at openly gay Army Secretary Eric Fanning, calling him “an effeminate sodomite” who “leads the Crusaders.”

The magazine again lauds Mateen for “massacring the filthy Crusaders” in “the most deadly attack in America since the Manhattan raid 15 years ago.”

Within an article on a convert from Christianity, ISIS ran a photo of the gravestone of Capt. Humayun Khan — the soldier killed in Iraq whose parents’ appearance at the Democratic National Convention sparked a war of words with Donald Trump — accompanied by the caption, “Beware of dying as an apostate.”

Also see:

Let’s Roll: Why Standing Up to a Terrorist Is Your Best Self-Defense

160728_SelfDefense-1250x650Daily Signal, by Glen Butler, July 28, 2016

After the carnage like we’ve witnessed in American cities such as San Bernardino and Orlando, and more recently in Europe, the national conversation tends to shift temporarily back toward gun control legislation and how to best protect ourselves in the homeland from future terrorist attacks.

Sadly, however, what is always absent from these post-tragedy conversations is any mention of one change with enormous potential to save lives—one which would not require controversial legislation, millions of dollars, nor procurement of expensive advanced technologies. This change includes an overdue re-examination of how unarmed civilians should respond during these events, including how federal, state, and local authorities tell the public to respond.

Most every American has at some point either discussed or practiced an “active shooter response” based on guidance developed by the Department of Homeland Security.

Originally created, in part, as a buffer against potential lawsuits in the wake of a Nebraska mall shooting in late 2007, the guidance teaches us to run away if possible, hide if you are unable to escape, and fight back only as a last resort.

Today, “Run, Hide, Fight” is taught to everyone and mandated not only by the DHS, but also by the FBI, law enforcement…and even the military, including for its own members. Fear of lawsuits (by grieving family members of victims who fought back) still drives this and indirectly paralyzes everyone into watching helplessly as the active shooter and terrorist menace rampages.

Despite this public mandate to run away or cower when under attack, America vigorously celebrates those who violate this edict and confront the threat.

Three Americans were among those who famously thwarted an attack on a Paris train in August of last year; they’ve enjoyed celebrity status in the months since. Numerous other examples exist of average Americans bucking their government’s guidance, ignoring their survival instincts, and doing the right thing to help save others, and themselves.

Deciding how to respond in such a scenario is a personal choice, and it would be callous to criticize others who have experienced such trauma, no matter their response.

But the mere suggestion of confrontation has somehow become controversial. Recall the widespread criticism of former presidential candidate Ben Carson in October when he said “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me … I would ask everybody to attack” in response to a question about the shooting at an Oregon community college. The world was aghast he would say such a thing.

Nevertheless, consider that in 2012 the Aurora, Colorado, theater gunman who killed 20 people and injured 70 had enough time to leisurely fire 76 shots without confrontation, and was standing casually outside the theater before the arrival of police, who initially mistook him for one of their own.

More recently, an Orlando survivor told CNN he was hiding in the bathroom stall when the gunman’s gun jammed, and he initially thought someone would then use that pause to rush the attacker. “But no one did,” he said. That’s because they were all simply doing what they’ve been told to do, countless times.

The mindset that we are helpless without weapons is not only self-defeating, but dangerous, and government policy that reinforces this perception is a flawed one.

A September 2013 FBI report found that of the 160 active shooter incidents in the U.S. between 2010 and 2013, 21 (13.1 percent) ended after unarmed citizens made the “selfless and deeply personal choices” to confront the active shooters. In each of these cases, the citizens “safely and successfully disrupted the shootings” and “likely saved the lives” of many others present.

Another compelling reason to consider change is because future attacks are inevitable, and relying on police rescue might actually lower your own chance of survival.

The 2013 FBI report found that of those 160 active shooter incidents—incidents that generated 1,043 total casualties—60 percent ended before police arrived. These disturbing numbers warrant attention, especially when examined alongside CIA Director John Brennan’s recent remarks: “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West … our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach … [and] we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign.”

Finally, our government-mandated response guidance is based on outdated models.

Al-Qaeda’s recent Inspire magazine told its U.S. supporters to wage a “knife jihad” and stab civilians like they’re all “Israeli Jews.” A 17-year-old Afghan “refugee” recently attacked passengers in this manner on a German train, and an elderly Catholic priest was similarly butchered during a Mass in France.

Does it make any sense to hide behind a desk while a jihadi terrorist slowly slices your co-workers, fellow students, or other Americans to death with a knife or machete? Wouldn’t it be more practical, ethical, and effective to rush blade-wielding terrorists as soon as possible?

Ultimately, this is something Americans should discuss, pundits should debate, and government officials should examine.

On 9/11, Todd Beamer’s simple “Let’s roll” directive inspired his fellow United Airlines Flight 93 passengers, and now stands as enduring testament to real American grit.

It’s time we stop training to be lambs for the slaughter and have a national conversation about standing up to terrorists—a conversation that, for once, isn’t linked to either arming everyone with guns or to legislatively taking away those same weapons. It’s time to arm ourselves with knowledge about the benefits of action, and with training for such methods of defense and deterrence.

After all, you don’t need to be a Navy SEAL or a SWAT team leader to be a hero. You just need to reflect on the current plan’s flaws and be willing to take a better approach, to stand up together against the evil.

Let’s roll, America!

Western societies being told ‘get used to terrorism’

911-world-trade-center (1)

WND, July 30, 2016:

It’s shaping up to be a long hot summer for the West.

Terrorist attacks in Europe have become an almost daily occurrence. Attacks on police officers within the United States have increased dramatically within the last year. And the Republican candidate for president has staked his campaign on a promise of “restoring law and order.”

Social peace in the Occident hangs by a thread.

Europe already seems like it is on the brink, with Patrick Calvar, head of the General Directorate for Internal Security in France, predicting the country is on the verge of a civil war.

Already reeling from the terrorist attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the and the attacks in the Bataclan theater in 2015, the summer of 2016 has seen a relentlessly spike in activity in Western Europe by terrorists claiming allegiance to the Islamic State.

On the list:

Adding to the tension are admissions by German and French politicians and journalists they are attempting to conceal the truth of these attacks for fear of angering the native population.

A female German politician in the Left party admitted earlier this month she lied to the police when she was attacked by three migrant men. She initially told the police her attackers spoke German because she did not want to stoke “more hatred against migrants in Germany.” She also wrote an open letter on Facebook accusing “racists” of being the real problem.

A leaked report shows the sex attacks on German women on New Year’s Eve by Muslim migrants was far worse than initially reported, with around 1,200 women assaulted.

In response, German leader Angela Merkel has refused any calls to change Germany’s refugee policies.

Furthermore, some organs in the French media are now refusing to identify the names and backgrounds of terrorists, which will make it harder for the public to determine who is actually carrying out the attacks.

According to Willy Wimmer, former state secretary for Merkel’s German Christian Democratic Union Party, Merkel has never explained why she made the decision to open Germany’s borders.

Wimmer said the reaction of an increasing number of people is, “What does she have in mind to destroy our country?”

He suggested Merkel’s decision could ultimately lead to the destruction of the European institutions set up after World War II. He also predicted a “real tragedy” in France or Germany sooner or later.

Philip Haney, a former Department of Homeland Security analyst and the author of “See Something, Say Nothing,” said European governments seem to be telling their citizens to simply get used to terrorism rather than doing anything to stop it.

“It appears that French citizens are being forced by terrorists to move away from the European equivalent of ‘See Something, Say Something’ and are instead being advised to integrate defensive maneuvers into their daily life, much like British citizens had to do during the Blitz in World War II,” he told WND. “They are being told to not only get used to terrorism, but also that their leaders will never give up on open borders no matter how bad terrorism or the migrant crisis gets.”

Read more

French Journalists Try to Combat Terror

terrorist2Lifezette, by Brendan Kirby, July 29, 2016:

In World War I, Thomas Edison spent most of his time working on naval research. During World War II, Hollywood churned out one propaganda film after another.

During the Cold War, presidents of both parties demonstrated a steely resolve for decades to bring down the “Evil Empire.”

During the War on Terror, the president studiously avoids references to America’s adversaries that could be construed as offensive, and the nation’s leading technology companies figure out ways to thwart anti-terrorism investigators.

It’s not your father’s (or your grandfather’s or great-grandfather’s) war effort.

“It’s certainly the case that since 9/11, there has not been a kind of total societal commitment that would have been expected,” said Kyle Shideler, director of threat assessment for the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

There are some signs that may be starting to change, in Europe at least. Several news organizations in France have announced they will no longer reprint photographs of terrorists in order to avoid “posthumous gratification,” according to the The Guardian. Shideler noted that France this month called up 12,000 police reserves to supplement the 120,000 police and soldiers already deployed around the country in response to recent terrorist attacks.

But Sebastian Gorka, the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory Marine Corps University, said he is not so sure. He noted that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for instance, still opposes placing any caps on Syrian refugees coming into her country — despite terrorist attacks that have resulted from this policy.

“We still haven’t come to the bottom of the bucket yet,” he said. “The disconnect between the operators … and their political masters is huge.”

Gorka, author of “Defeating Jihad,” said the United States never marshaled an all-out response to Islamic terrorism.

“This is a huge problem, and it actually began under George Bush,” he said, referring to the former president’s exhortation that Americans should fight terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by shopping.

Part of the reason, Gorka said, is that a relatively small number of Americans personally have been impacted by terrorism.

“We have 1 percent of the population wearing the uniform. And that’s it,” he said.

After two Muslim extremists opened fire in December at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, Apple resisted efforts by the FBI to gain access to the databanks of the iPhone possessed by Rizwan Farook. The company claimed privacy concerns — even though the phone belonged to his employer, the county government in San Bernardino.

“Imagine if the government is in possession of a cellphone that it has reason to believe contains information about an imminent hijacking — or an effort to detonate a dirty bomb,” former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote last month in The Wall Street Journal. “Should we allow the manufacturer to refuse a court order to unlock it?”

Bloomberg noted that Twitter recently barred a company called Dataminr, which analyzes tweets to create breaking news alerts, from sharing data with U.S. intelligence agencies. Yet, the company sells the same information to financial firms and media outlets — including a state-owned media outlet in Russia.

“In other words: Twitter allows the KGB to access Dataminr, but not the CIA,” Bloomberg wrote.

Gorka said companies generally have no interest to helping the government: “It’s all about the bottom line. It’s all about making money.”

Shideler said the asymmetrical nature of the conflict makes it harder for average citizens to relate — compared with World War II when most young men were fighting and women and children were saving tin cans for the war effort.

“The conflict takes place on an ideological level rather than the nation-state level,” he said.

Gorka said people routinely misquote Sun Tzu’s famous quote about knowing your enemy. The ancient Chinese military strategist wrote in “The Art of War” that it is important to know not just your enemy but yourself.

“We don’t know why we are fighting,” Gorka said. “We don’t know what we are fighting for. And in many cases, we don’t even want to admit we’re at war.”

Shideler said he is not sure what it would take to alter the way Americans approach Islamic terrorism other than the horrible impact of frequent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. He contrasted how Americans would react to a bag abandoned on a park bench to the reaction it would provoke in Israel.

“It’s really dramatically different,” he said.

Gorka said a new direction requires something else.

“It would take leadership,” he said.

Disconnected Dems can’t respond to GOP’s national security message

hillaryclinton_getty052716

The Hill, By Rick Manning, July 28, 2016:

GOP nominee Donald Trump got a huge convention bounce nationally with his personal, homeland and national security message out of Cleveland, and the Democrats are systemically unable to respond because any meaningful, tough response would require a repudiation of their own policies and an admission that the world has an Islamic jihad problem.

You can see the weakness of the Democratic position in President Obama’s limp reaction to the Cleveland convention that things aren’t as bad as they seem. A theme that runs counter to his ambulance chasing around the country, attempting to drive his gun control agenda.

It can be seen in the Obama administration’s pathetic response to the news that two Islamic radicals attacked a Roman Catholic mass in Normandy, France, beheading an 85-year-old priest in front of his congregation that, “France and the United States share a commitment to protecting religious liberty for those of all faiths, and today’s violence will not shake that commitment.”

No one wants to restrict religious liberty, but that is really code for Obama and the Democrats’ fear of naming the problem of Islamic extremism and jihad, and the people of the United States know it.

When people, in the name of Islam, kill a French priest in what was described as an almost religious ritualistic execution; murder nine Germans in Munich; maniacally drive through a crowd in Nice, France, ending 84 lives; and open fire on co-workers in San Bernardino, California and gays at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, soft words don’t impress anyone. Least of all, those who seek to murder the infidels all around them.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is trapped in this Obama box, and she dares not utter the basic truth that the world has a Sharia law problem, and the policies she supports that open America’s doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East will make our nation dramatically less safe.

The public rejection of Obama and Clinton’s weakness likely won’t show up in the public opinion polls because Americans have been told by the media that it is racist and bigoted to pinpoint the obvious problem. But it will show up when it counts, at polling places all across America in November.

Americans don’t want their government to coddle those who wish to kill their families and don’t particularly care if their reason is because they are Charles Manson insane or they are following what they have been taught is a fundamental precept of Islam. Americans want a federal government that is more concerned with keeping potential terrorists out of the country than figuring out how to resettle refugees from terrorist states in their neighborhoods.

And the Clinton knee-jerk response of supporting Australian-style gun confiscation laws aimed at denying law-abiding Americans who live in those neighborhoods the right to defend their homes is a sure loser everywhere except in the gated, protected communities where she hangs out.

The Democratic National Convention, with its anti-cop, pro-illegal immigration and amnesty emphasis, is the exact wrong convention at the exact wrong time, and every drop of blood spilled by jihadists, illegal immigrants or Obama’s early released criminals puts an exclamation point on the political disaster Clinton is leading.

Incredibly, the Democrats are so disconnected from real America that they cannot bring themselves to see that their ’60s Woodstock philosophy is a fairy tale, and that there are those in the world whose religion is to kill the rest of us no matter how many flowers you stick in their gun barrels. The real world is a tougher, meaner place where strength is needed to survive.

As a result, the more they talk, the better off Trump looks.

The stunning part is that the Democrats are so blinded that they can’t see what is obvious to everyone else who is paying attention. The end results of Obama and Clinton’s policies toward refugees has already been tested in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where acts of jihad seemingly occur daily and rapes are skyrocketing as Sharia followers envelop communities.

Unless Clinton can figure out a way to change the subject and get voters’ minds on something else, she is not only going to lose, but do so in historic fashion. But to solve a problem, you have to understand it, and for Democrats who fear even calling Islamic jihad what it is, there is no way out of the politically correct thought prison they have constructed.

Manning is the president of Americans for Limited Government.

What Motivates Jihad And What Is America’s Plan To Defeat It?

2016-06-24_featured-1140x660The Federalist,  27, 2016:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, writer and expert on national security and terrorism, joined the Federalist Radio Hour to explain how America can attack the jihadi movement and defeat the war on terror. He is author of the new book, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, now a New York Times Best Seller.

ISIS is more powerful than Al-Qaeda ever was and is the most significant jihadi resurgence since the Caliphate was dissolved said Gorka. “What we are seeing–the murder of this priest, the murder of this pregnant woman–this is executed by people who are the incarnation of evil,” he said. “These aren’t random acts. These aren’t psychologically disturbed. This is evil incarnate and we must recognize that.”

Gorka explained the origins of ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the strategists behind jihad. “These people aren’t crazy…they have a plan. They’re not capricious and they’re not making it up as they go along,” he said.

Our national security is cross-wired with a political agenda that is endangering Americans. “These things have become hot button issues inside the intelligence community, and you touch upon them, you discuss them at your own peril and at a risk to your career.

Listen here:

Jihadi terror attacks multiply: Will the West submit or WAKE UP?

maxresdefault (3)

The Rebel, by Brian Lilley, July 27, 2016:

Did you hear about the latest terror attack? If you’re paying attention the correct answer is, “Which one?” There are so many, and lately that is just in the West.

What if I told you that in the last 30 days, there have been 160 attacks carried out by Islamic radicals and that those attacks saw 1,590 people killed and 2,412 people injured? Would you be shocked?

That’s the claim made by website The Religion of Peace which tracks terrorist attacks all around the world.

And so while we can point to the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14 that saw 84 people killed when Mohammed Bouhlel drove a truck through a crowded pedestrian area, how many can point to the 13 people killed by al Shabab suicide bombers on July 26?

Those two suicide bombings didn’t get much media attention in the West but they happened in attacks carried out by people that want to establish their strict vision of Islamic rule on everyone around them.

Those attacks happened the same day that Catholic priest Father Jacques Hamel was killed while performing the sacred rites of the Mass. His throat was slit by two young Jihadis in Normandy, France.

The 85-year-old man was forced to his knees before his execution. Nuns were taken hostage in the attack which ended with dead Jihadis but not before they violated the sanctuary of the altar with their callous murder of a defenceless old priest and by reportedly giving their jihadi sermon at the altar – alternating between French and Arabic, spewing their hatred.

They were shot by police, which ended the whole ordeal.

The Somalia attack got next to no media coverage in the West, the attack in France relegated behind other stories like Hillary Clinton officially securing the Democratic Party nomination.

Maybe we are getting used to terror attacks in France?

We know the attacks from November 13, 2015 – the massacre at Bataclan nightclub. We know the attack July 14, 2016 – that was in Nice. But do you know the others?

More shockingly, do you know about the other terror attacks?

The day before Fr. Hamel was killed and 13 people were killed in Mogadishu, did you hear about the 17 killed and more than 40 injured in suicide bombings in Khalis, Iraq? That was July 25.

The day before that, July 24, there were 21 people killed in Baghdad.

On that same day a Syrian migrant, a failed refugee claimant, blew himself up outside a bar in Germany after being turned away from a festival.

We heard a bit about that but not much. Only a little more than the Baghdad bombing.

On July 23 there were several terror attacks but the biggest happened in Kabul, Afghanistan. Three suicide bombers killed 81 people. Why? Because the people killed were Shiite or Shia Muslims and those that claimed responsibility, ISIS, are Sunnis that hate Shias.

I haven’t even gotten past last weekend and we’re into hundreds of people killed in terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists intent on spreading their vision, their goals, their religion around the world – not by the sword but by the bomb and the gun.

The word Islam means submit and that is the intent of those carrying out these attacks, to one way or another get you to submit to their views.

It matters not whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, or a Muslim that might just believe something a little different — their goal is to get you to submit.

After the killing of Father Hamel, French President Francoise Hollande said that France was at war with this strain of Islam.

I’d like to believe him. But despite the onslaught of attacks in Western countries alone, never mind the attacks in other countries, I’m not sure people in the west are ready to wake up.

What I am sure of is that the Islamists, whether ISIS or al Shabbab or al Qaida, are at war with us. They have declared it, they are waging it and they have no plans of stopping so we better wake up and get serious.

***

Also see:

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaeda hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

France Sacrifices Priest on the Altar of False Tolerance

quote-unilateral-tolerance-in-a-world-of-intolerance-is-like-unilateral-disarmament-in-a-world-of-armed-anthony-daniels-psychiatrist-222576Answering Muslims, by David Wood, July 26, 2016:

On Tuesday morning, two jihadis stormed a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France, with knives and a fake bomb. They forced a Catholic priest to his knees and filmed themselves slashing his throat at the altar. They later shouted “Allahu Akbar” while police shot them to death.

Prior to the attack, French police had caught one of the jihadis repeatedly attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS. Nevertheless, he was free to roam the streets of France, as long as he wore an electronic bracelet.

Even worse, French authorities knew that the church was being targeted by ISIS, since an ISIS hit list found in 2015 named the church as a target.

Given the circumstances, do French authorities bear some of the blame for the outcome of the attack?

***

Also see:

Normandy Priest Slaughter: Europe Teeters on the Brink

priest

Front Page Magazine, by Ari Lieberman, July 27, 2016

Still reeling from a truck attack in the French resort city of Nice on Bastille Day that left 84 dead and more than 300 wounded, France was hit yet again with Islamic terrorism, this time in the northern French town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. The carnage began at approximately 9am on Tuesday when two knife-wielding Muslim terrorists, chanting their battle cry of “Allahuakbar,” burst into a church during morning mass and took hostages. They then proceeded to murder, Jacques Hamel, an 86-year-old priest by slitting his throat before being shot dead by police snipers. Another hostage, gravely wounded by the attackers, is reported to be hovering between life and death. The remaining three hostages survived unharmed.

The terrorists swore allegiance to ISIS and the group claimed responsibility for the attack through its propaganda outlet. At least one of the attackers was known to law enforcement. In 2015, he traveled to Turkey in an attempt to infiltrate into Syria and join an Islamist group but was apprehended by the Turks and shipped back to France. He did a brief jail stint before being released by French authorities. His liberal release terms allowed him to be unsupervised between the hours of 8.30am and 12.30pm. The Church attack occurred during those hours.

Tuesday’s outrage was eerily similar to a November 2014 attack on a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem. Two Muslim-Palestinian terrorists, armed with hatchets, meat cleavers and a pistol burst into the synagogue during morning services and brutally murdered four worshipers before being killed in an exchange with police. A policeman was also killed during the firefight and a fifth worshiper succumbed to his wounds a year later.

These attacks, whether occurring in Europe or Israel, are inspired and driven by the same radical, Islamo-fascist ideology. Those who perpetrate such bestial acts as well as those who incite them are devoid of any semblance of humanity. Enlightened Europe has still largely failed to grasp this concept, believing that rehabilitation for such individuals is still a viable option. It is not. Had French authorities understood this, at least one of the terrorists who carried out the cowardly attack would have been sitting in a damp cell or deported.

Pope Francis, whose liberal views on Muslim migrants are well known, condemned the atrocity. But The Pope is an enormously influential personality whose opinions carry extraordinary weight and persuasive moral authority. Yet he has inexplicably chosen to adopt a viewpoint that has Europe teetering on the brink and could very well lead to its demise. It is a virtual certainty that many of the Muslim migrants are wolves in sheep’s clothing and are members of ISIS or otherwise harbor extremist Islamist views and are just one degree of separation from full-fledged murderers. Indeed, many of the recent attacks, including last year’s Paris attacks that claimed the lives of 130, were perpetrated by individuals who claimed refugee status and sought asylum.

In the past eight months, Europe has been wracked by unprecedented violence carried out exclusively by Muslim terrorists.

  • On November 13, 2015, ISIS terrorists struck multiple targets in Paris in a coordinated, well-planned assault killing 130 and wounding 350.
  • On March 22, 2016, ISIS terror attacks at Brussels airport and the Maelbeek metro station claimed the lives of 32.
  • On June 13, 2016, an ISIS terrorist stabbed a French police chief and his wife to death outside their home in Magnanville near the French capital.
  • On July 14, 2016, a Muslim truck driver barreled his lorry down a promenade filled with pedestrians in the city of Nice, killing 84 and injuring more than 300.
  • On July 18, 2016, a Muslim immigrant boarded a train in Germany and attacked passengers with an axe, seriously injuring five.
  • On July 22, 2016, an Iranian shot and killed nine people in a Munich shopping mall
  • On July 24, 2016, A Syrian refugee attacked a pregnant woman with a machete in the German city of Reutlingen, killing her and wounding three others.
  • On July 24, 2016, A Syrian refugee detonated a bomb at an open-air music festival in the southern city of Ansbach, wounding 12.

These attacks are in addition to the numerous rapes and sexual assaults, both documented and undocumented, perpetrated by Muslim migrants against European women.

In response to the surge in attacks, France has instituted a state of emergency and the EU has turned to Israel, recognized as a world leader in combatting terrorism, for assistance. Israeli counter-terrorism units have trained their European counterparts and Israeli intelligence has been instrumental in thwarting terror attacks on the European continent.

In 2015, Israeli intelligence tipped German authorities off to an imminent terror threat that forced the cancellation of a soccer match between Germany and the Netherlands that was scheduled to take place on November 17 at Hanover Stadium.

The EU is also seeking Israeli expertise in dealing with so-called lone wolf attacks. Israeli technology companies have developed specialized software to deal with the growing phenomena of individuals radicalized or otherwise influenced by online social media forums. Israel’s anti-terror cyber capabilities are very formidable and the EU recognizes this.

But while these measures may help in the short run, a longer term solution is required. Europe’s open door policy for Muslim migrants has turned into an unmitigated failure. Until the EU acknowledges this fact and takes the necessary measures to secure its borders, deport asylum seekers, stiffen penalties for incitement, and loosen absurd restrictions imposed on law enforcement, the dreadful attacks that we’ve witnessed in Western Europe in recent years will only intensify.

Lastly, the EU must recognize that appeasement represents the policy of a defeated people. The EU, led by France and Sweden, has kowtowed to the Palestinians who maintain an extremist ideology that parallels the Islamic State’s. And Just as ISIS celebrated the attack at Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, the Palestinians, of all political stripes and persuasions, celebrated the Har Nof massacre. Though their oratory may differ, Hamas, Fatah (the party of PA president, Mahmoud Abbas), ISIS, and Hezbollah are all cut from the same cloth and seek the same maximalist, genocidal goals.

Terror in France and the Annals of Willful Blindness

memorial Nice

By failing to take the jihadists’ ideology seriously, we refuse to understand the breadth of the threat we face.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, July 16, 2016:

Well into year eight of Obama, with the prospect of years nine through twelve hanging heavy in the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, it feels like I write the same column every few weeks now. How could it not? Fort Hood, Detroit, Times Square, Portland, Cairo, Benghazi, Boston, Garland, Paris, Chattanooga, Paris again, San Bernardino, Philadelphia, Brussels, Istanbul, Orlando, Istanbul again, Dhaka, and now, Nice. Even if we leave out the more overt war zones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Egypt, and Israel, the jihadist attacks targeting the West are coming in more rapid succession: iconic targets, dates of commemoration, diplomatic outposts, tourists, and citizens just going about their lives.

It is easy to grasp why this is the case. Willful blindness has metastasized from a dangerous dereliction of duty to a system of governance.

It was the wee hours of Friday morning, just after the Bastille Day jihadist mass-murder of at least 84 people. For Mrs. Clinton, that seemed the perfect time to take to Twitter and set the tone of the American response — the kind of resolve we can expect in a third Obama term. So as France retrieved the dead, dying, and maimed from the Promenade des Anglais, where Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel had barreled over them in his truck, she unloaded with the concern foremost in her mind:

Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

I know, I know: you’re just relieved that she didn’t find a video to blame this time. Still, Clinton’s remarks are criminally stupid. So much so, they overwhelm even the criminal recklessness for which the FBI has just given her a pass on felony charges. She clearly mishandled mounds of classified information, but it appears doubtful that she read much of it. Or maybe she did read it but learned nothing from it, since politicizing intelligence and purging the Islam from Islamic terrorism is strict Obama-Clinton policy.

RELATED: Jihadists Are ‘Strong-Horsing’ the West

Even to one so superficial as Clinton, it should by now be perfectly obvious that that there is no “Islam,” at least not if we are talking about a monolithic belief system. There are sects of Islam, all vying for supremacy in what is, in the main, a conquest ideology — with the various splinters having very different ideas about what conquest entails, and with no papal analogue to impose order by decreeing orthodoxy and condemning heterodoxy.

Clearly, some of these sects are our enemy. And just as clearly, these sects also have a legitimate claim on the designation “Islam.” That does not mean they have a monopoly on the interpretation of Islam (there, again, being no such monopoly). But it does oblige government officials responsible for national security to deal with jihadists and other sharia supremacists on their own terms.

Why? Because the objective is to defeat our enemies, not redefine them. To defeat the enemy still requires knowing the enemy. Try as he might, Obama is unable to fundamentally transform Sun Tzu.

Obama-Clinton policy is to deny Islamic standing to jihadist terrorists. To be fair, it is an exacerbation of Bush policy. More importantly, it is pointlessly suicidal.

First the pointless part: The enemy derives legitimacy from his own literalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine. Thus, he is utterly indifferent to what the Westerners he seeks to conquer think of him or say about him. We non-Muslims cannot broker the competing doctrinal claims of internecine Islamic conflict.

Jihadists care neither about what Washington thinks “the true Islam” is, nor about the counterfactual “peace” and “tolerance” rhetoric in which this “true Islam” is swaddled. Our enemies’ Islamic legitimacy was not granted by us, and we are powerless to take it away from them. That’s for Muslims to figure out. Our enemies, moreover, know a good deal more about the subject than we do, their highly influential scholars having spent lifetimes steeped in sharia jurisprudence. They shred Washington’s imaginary “true Islam” with their own informed Islam, making us a laughing stock. I hate to be the bearer of (more) bad news, but, yes, the Blind Sheikh actually does know a tad more about Islam than Hillary Clinton.

RELATED: How Will France and the West Respond to Savage Terror Attack in Nice?

Now for the suicidal part of denying the Islamic moorings of jihadism: Contrary to White House blather, people do not commit mass-murder attacks because of economic privation or over trifling slights. They commit it because they are seized by commands that they take to be divine injunctions rooted in scripture, their devotion to which will determine whether paradise or eternal damnation awaits.

You may be a haughty American progressive, but not everybody is. You may roll your eyes over quaint notions like religious obligation, but not everybody is equally evolved. Not everybody is convinced that bloody sectarian conflict — the norm of history — is just as obsolete as the rule of law in the age of Obama.

I had to fight of the urge to throw my television out the window Thursday evening. Images of bodies strewn across the promenade along the Côte d’Azur were interrupted by one vapid pol after another, brought on set to condemn the “cowardly” jihadist. Cowardly? Do you think you could drive a truck through a mass of humanity and then shoot it out with trained security personnel, knowing all the while that you were going to die? Our enemies are barbaric savages, but cowards? To do what our enemies do requires nerve, fervor — a cause they believe is worthy of the raging passion Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna called “the art of death.”

The fervor comes from their ideology. It has this terrifying hold on them because it is credibly drawn from their religious doctrine. If you don’t get that, if you think you can blithely dismiss jihadism as “cowardice” and thus avoid the unpleasant burden of understanding why it happens, you are never going to get what we’re up against. You are never going to summon the resolve it is going to take to overcome the enemy.

Because we don’t believe in much of anything anymore, we discount the pull of ideology. But everything about this enemy, from the pecking order of its leaders to its ruthless methods, from the targets it chooses to the ends it seeks, is all about ideology — fiercely held by its adherents because it is scripturally based. If we don’t face up to the fact that ideology is the core of the challenge we face — that we do not have the luxury of ignoring ideology until after it catalyzes murderous action — we cannot defend ourselves.

If we don’t grasp that the goal of our enemies is the imposition of fundamentalist sharia, we will continue to miss the breadth of the threat — the fact that the jihadists are just the front-line militants. Slipstreaming behind them, exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation they create, are the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated faux moderates who pursue the same ends by infiltrating our councils of government policy and institutions of opinion.

These “moderates” have called the tune throughout Obama’s first two terms, and they’re banking on a third. That’s why we’re losing.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.