The Unaccompanied Muslim Minor Refugee Terror Attack in London

Taking in refugees causes terror.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 18, 2017:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Last decade, Ronald and Penelope Jones were being feted for their work as foster parents. Now their suburban Surrey home was raided in an investigation into the train bombing in London.

The Joneses had won praise for fostering hundreds of children. But their growing interest in taking in refugees from Muslim countries turned their pleasant home with its wooden fences and green backyard into a ticking time bomb.

And that bomb may have gone off at the Parsons Green station leaving behind flash burns and horror.

Earlier, the Joneses had admitted that, “We’ve had a real mix of children from Iraq, Eritrea, Syria, Albania and Afghanistan.” The tidal wave of refugees from these countries has swept across Europe bringing terror and death.

Ronald Jones, 88, and Penelope Jones, 71, like so many well-meaning Westerners, had no idea what they were letting themselves in for until the police were hammering at their door. Now they themselves have been turned into refugees, seeking shelters with relatives, while the police search for clues to the latest terror attack.

The couple became interested in fostering “refugees” when the media barraged helpless listeners with sob stories of Syrian suffering. But while they spoke often of children, the actual migrants are adults.

At the center of the case is Yahyah Farroukh, a Syrian, in his twenties. Farroukh was no child.

Neighbors described a constant flow of traffic to the Jones home. The visitors wore the traditional Islamic clothing often associated with the Jihadists who are the core of the European terror threat.

Prayer mats were set out in the garden. And there were constant cell phone conversations.

Farroukh allegedly invaded Europe by taking a migrant boat from Egypt to Italy.

Another of the alleged Jones “refugees” is an 18-year-old Iraqi from Baghdad who had apparently been monitored by law enforcement. And may have even been previously arrested. A refugee charity allegedly helped bring him to the UK. And arranged to have him placed with the Joneses.

The Iraqi had overloaded even the endless generosity of the Joneses who reportedly found him troublesome and dangerous. And that must have taken some doing.

It was this Iraqi whom police may suspect planted the bomb at Parsons Green station. And when the bomb went off on a crowded train on Friday, the holiest day in the Islamic religion, the manhunt began.

The Iraqi refugee was arrested trying to buy a ticket to Calais.

Calais to Dover is the route that refugees take to penetrate the UK. The Joneses had spoken of one “boy” in their care who had “managed to get in a lorry travelling through Calais.”

The Iraqi refugee suspect had originally come through Calais, but now he was headed the other way.

France has even better developed Islamic terror networks than the UK. And from Calais, it’s a few hours to the terrorist no-go zones of Brussels in Belgium, where terror plots originate and anything goes, or to the Islamic suburbs of Paris like Sevran. And the terror traffic may go both ways.

Last month, Bachir Hamou, an Algerian, rammed a car into French soldiers near Paris. He was caught by French authorities in Pas-de-Calais. Where was he headed? The Joneses may not be the only ones who take in “refugees”. Westerners take them in before they kill. Their Islamic comrades take them in afterward.

The Iraqi suspect in the Parsons Green attack had come by way of Calais and its infamous “Jungle camp”. Had he reached his destination, he would have found illegal contacts and allies to move him onward. The UK had already taken in “vulnerable” minors from the “Jungle” as part of a deal to dismantle it despite warnings that they might represent a terror threats. But the horde of migrants from Muslim countries are still besieging the UK and France.

The news reports say that he penetrated the UK as an “unaccompanied minor”. And minors need foster parents to “care” for them. That was how the Joneses came into the story.

But many of the “unaccompanied minors” who arrived during the migrant surges that plagued Europe and America were never minors. They were adult men pretending to be teenagers.

The Iraqi suspect in the Parsons Green bombing case hasn’t been named. The Syrian has. But the names and ages mean very little. Despite the vocal protestations of refugee activists and the media, we cannot vet or verify the masses of migrants who claim to be arriving from war torn terror states.

The names and ages are meaningless.

In Sweden, the migrants can be listed as “children” if they “don’t look over 40”. Back in the UK, a 12-year-old “child refugee” from Afghanistan raised his foster mother’s suspicions when she noticed how hairy he was. He turned out to be a decade older. His last words to his foster mother were, “I’ll kill you and I know where your children are.”

Back when they were being feted for their dedication to fostering children, Mrs. Jones had said, “I treat them how I would like to be treated if I was in that situation.”

The trouble though is that Islamic terrorists aren’t Mrs. Jones. And when the shoe is on the other foot, it turns out to have a bomb in it.

Westerners opened their hearts to the “child refugees”, but the children turned out to be violent men with a nasty tendency to kill, threaten and rape. The cuckoo’s eggs have hatched into vicious bombings and horrifying attacks. Sympathy for the Syrian devil ends in coffins and hospitals.

We don’t know everything that there is to know about the Parsons Green attack. And considering the tendency of the authorities to minimize the terrorism angle, it’s possible that we never will.

But we do know that thoughtless kindness to evil can be the worst sort of cruelty.

Leftist critics tell us that Islamic terrorism is blowback for the cruelty of our foreign policy. But it is most often blowback for the misplaced kindness of their immigration policy. As we once again debate the Muslim travel ban, we ought to consider the case of an elderly British couple who just wanted to help.

But their kindness was sadly misplaced. The wages of that kindness allegedly burst into a fireball in the London Underground, scorching commuters who only wanted to make it to the weekend.

The Joneses had wished to take in vulnerable children. Instead they housed angry men. And those angry men are suspected of setting off a bomb on a train packed with children. It was these children, not the migrant refugees playing at being unaccompanied minors, who were the true vulnerable children.

It was they who deserved kindness and care. Not their attempted murderers.

This was the horror that the misplaced kindness of taking in Muslim migrants brought to the UK.

“There was a poor little boy smashed into the floor with his face bleeding and screaming. There was a woman shouting that she was pregnant… Kids were being pushed out of the way and their nannies and mothers were trying to grab them… There was a girl with no skin on her legs, one with the back of her garment burned away.”

Those who made it possible for the terrorists to commit this atrocity were not being kind. They were being cruel.

Welcoming terrorists to the United Kingdom or the United States, to Canada or to Australia, is not kindness. It is cruelty. What feels good can end with children screaming in the London Underground.

Also see:

In fact, a recent report examining 63 Islamic terror incidents over the past three years in Europe and North America – killing 424 people and injured nearly 1,800 – found that 74 percent of the attackers were already known to authorities.

How many more have to die at the hands of “Known Wolf” terrorists before government officials take the problem seriously? Many more, it seems.

As of June 30, according to the UK Home Office, “there were 204 persons in custody in Great Britain for terrorism-related [offenses], an increase of 35% on the 151 persons in custody as at the previous year.” This continues “the upward trend seen in terrorist prisoners over the last few years.”

Of the 204 people in custody, “the majority (91%) held Islamist extremist views.” A “further 5% held far right-wing ideologies, and 4% other ideologies.” In its report earlier this month, the UK Home Office published the bar chart below showing the number of people in custody due to suspected terrorism-related offenses since June 2015:

Earlier this year, British officials said they were investigating 500 possible plots involving 3,000 people on the “top list” of suspects at any given time. In addition, 20,000 other people are on the counterterrorism radar for one reason or another and are still considered potentially problematic.

The British government previously warned that the Islamic State has created an “unprecedented” level of threats, both in terms of “range” and “pace.”

Paris Terror Attack Targets Police on the Champs-Elysees, Suspect is Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Aug. 9, 2017:

A man previously known to French authorities for radicalism has rammed his car into a bus filled with police on the iconic Champs-Élysées in the heart of Paris this afternoon.

This is yet another “Known Wolf” terror attack. Virtually all terror attacks are committed by someone already known to authorities:

Reports claim that the car exploded upon impact and that the suspect had an AK-47 but was reportedly killed at the scene:

French reports indicate that the still-unnamed suspect was on on the “fiche S” terror list for radicalism and previously known to authorities:

Read more

Also see:

ISIS hits Paris again, this time on Champs-Elysees

Omarukai | Flickr

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, April 20, 2017:

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for a deadly terrorist attack in Paris Wednesday that resulted in the deaths of two police officers.

The attack occurred on a street known as the “Champs-Elysees,” the same avenue that contains the famous Arc de Triomphe. Authorities say one police officer was killed in the attack, and another was wounded.

ISIS took credit for the attack through its Amaq news service. They claim it was carried out by a man they called Abu Yussuf al Beljiki (in English: the Belgian).

French police say the terrorist was already the subject of a “Fiche S,” which means that he was under surveillance and being watched by French intelligence authorities. CNN reports that “The shooting has not officially been declared a terrorist act but anti-terrorist forces are leading the investigation, French President Francois Hollande said.”

At about 9 p.m. local time, the suspect “got out of the vehicle and shot at the police vehicle with an automatic weapon, killing one policeman instantly,” said French Interior Ministry Spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet. He then “ran away, managing to shoot and wound two other policeman. Other policeman engaged and shot and killed the attacker,” Brander added.

The attack occurred just three days before the French presidential election on Sunday. Several candidates — Marine Le Pen, Francois Fillon, Jean-Luc Melenchon, Emmanuel Macron, Benoit Hamon, and others — are vying for the nation’s highest position and tweeted their condolences to the victims of the jihadi assault.

France continues to be on the receiving end of a recent wave of Islamic terror.

On March 18 of this year, an Islamic terrorist was neutralized after he tried to take a weapon from a soldier’s automatic rifle.

On February 3, an Egyptian man yelling “Allahu akbar” attempted to break into the Louvre museum wielding a machete.

The past few years has seen some of the deadliest attacks in the nation’s long history.

July 14, 2016: an Islamic terrorist purposely drove his 19-ton cargo truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille day, killing 86 people and injuring 434.

Nov. 13-14, 2015: Jihadis connected to the Islamic State stormed the Bataclan theater and several other locations, resulting in the deaths of 137 and hundreds more injuries, marking the single deadliest terrorist attack in the history of France.

Jan. 7-9, 2015: al-Qaeda linked militants massacred the staff at Charlie Hebdo to get back at them for drawing cartoons of Islam’s Muhammad. A third Islamic radical shot up a nearby Jewish supermarket.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for CR. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel. 

***

Also see:

America’s ‘known wolf’ jihadist problem: Why haven’t we learned from our mistakes?

Muhammad ud-Deen | Greg A L | Wikimedia Commons

Conservative Review, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 20, 2017:

One of the more disturbing and dangerous trends in American national security is the proliferation of “known wolves” — jihadists who are able to commit terrorist attacks against our homeland in spite of the fact that they are on law enforcement’s radar.

This issue is becoming so commonplace that literally in the midst of drafting this piece, news broke of one such potential figure. Kori Ali Muhammad murdered three innocents in Fresno, California during a rampage in which he reportedly screamed “Allahu akbar.” In spite of authorities characterizing his attack as a hate crime rather than terrorism, Muhammad certainly appears to have been a “known wolf”, with local news sources reporting not only a criminal background but a history of “making terrorist threats.”

More chilling were the revelations detailed in a recent episode of 60 Minutes concerning the would-be terrorists known to the FBI who attempted to shoot up the 2015 “Draw Muhammad” cartoon event held in Garland, Texas. The show’s investigators found that an undercover FBI agent working with the pair of jihadists had urged one of them to “Tear up Texas,” and was in an automobile directly behind them in the moments leading up to their failed attack. Maddeningly, the agent apparently did not attempt to intervene and prevent the potential massacre.

But perhaps the most infamous known wolf of all is Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki was an American citizen who would become one of the leading jihadist clerics and al-Qaeda recruiters in the world before being assassinated via drone in Yemen in 2011.

Awlaki’s name has surfaced in connection with a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch of great importance and relevance as a new administration grapples with how to defend America from the jihadists within.

Judicial Watch filed suit against the FBI in order to force the agency to produce records relating to its investigation of Awlaki, given his confirmed connection to several 9/11 hijackers.

Fox News recently released images captured by the FBI stemming from this investigation that show Awlaki being surveilled on the same day in February of 2002 as he spoke at a conference at the Pentagon on “Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture.”

The fact that Awlaki — who was interviewed by the FBI at least four times in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks due to his known ties to three of the hijackers — was invited to speak at a Department of Defense luncheon intended to serve as a forum for Muslim outreach alone is unsettling.

But the story gets worse:

The FBI documents confirm the imam was under bureau surveillance as part of the “IT UBL/Al-Qaeda” investigation, but the information was not shared with the Defense Department’s Office of General Counsel, which sponsored the 2002 Pentagon lunch.

The high-level FBI surveillance – including specialized teams, as well as video and photos – also calls into question the bureau’s explanation regarding a decision eight months later, in October 2002, by FBI agent Wade Ammerman. While Awlaki was held by Customs officers at JFK airport because of an outstanding warrant for the cleric’s arrest from the Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego, Ammerman told Customs to release him. The FBI has maintained Ammerman’s actions were routine. 

Meanwhile, the FBI has been reluctant to divulge details of the Awlaki investigation.

As the Fox News report notes:

The FBI first released blurry ‘Xerox’ copies in 2013 of the photos with poor resolution. Chris Farrell, director of Judicial Watch investigations, said they sued the bureau for more because Awlaki had confirmed contact with the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego and Virginia.

“The FBI continues to obstruct and delay the production of records concerning their investigation of the dead terrorist spiritual leader of the 9/11 hijackers –Anwar Awlaki,” Farrell said…

Farrell said the FBI released screen grabs but refused to release the surveillance videos. “Almost 16 years later [after 9/11 attacks], how are the interests of the American public served by the FBI’s legal gamesmanship and excessive redactions?” he said.

This is a valid question that Congress ought to take up in earnest.

The American people also deserve to know the answers to several other pertinent questions:

  • How is it that an individual could be investigated for terrorist links at the same time he was invited to speak to U.S. government defense officials in an outreach capacity?
  • Can the FBI report of any other analogous instances in which this has occurred?
  • What steps has the FBI taken to ensure that figures like Awlaki under FBI investigation are not actively consulting with U.S. government authorities, whether formally or informally?
  • In outreach efforts under the government’s countering violent extremism paradigm, is the FBI contacted to ensure that partners have been vetted for terrorist ties and are not the subject of current or past investigation, a la Awlaki?
  • Does the FBI believe it committed any additional errors in connection with its handling of its investigation of Awlaki? If so, what are they, and what measures has the FBI taken to ensure they will never be made in the future?

In formal remarks delivered by DHS Secretary John Kelly on April 18 on threats facing America, Sec. Kelly devoted substantial space to the issue of “Homegrown Terrorism,” which includes known wolves like Awlaki.

If we do not have an open and honest accounting of past failures on this count, we cannot hope to correct them in the future.

Given the great damage inflicted by the countering violent extremism project —- whereby the U.S. government outsourced its counterjihadist policies to the very Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups responsible for purging the materials and figures best-equipped to orient our policies towards the Islamic supremacist threat (some groups of which may directly constitute the threat themselves) — time is of the essence if we are to change course and keep the homeland safe.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. 

One Week, Five Terror Attacks: Beginnings of Another ‘Summer of Terror’?

PJ Media, by Patick Poole, April 8, 2017:

By the end of July last year, I noted that from the time of the Pulse dance club attack in Orlando that killed 49 Western countries were seeing ISIS-inspired terror attacks at the rate of one every 84 hours – a statistic that was picked

The pace slackened slightly over the next two months, but last summer I termed the “Summer of Terror”:

And now just hours before the beginning of the Christian Holy Week and a few days before Jewish Passover, the events of this past week may indicate that we’re seeing the beginnings of yet another “Summer of Terror” comparable to last year or perhaps surpass.

Just this week we’ve seen terror attacks in:

  • St. Petersburg, Russia
  • Vancouleurs, France
  • Queanbeyan, Australia
  • Ofra, West Bank
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Read more

’60 Minutes’ Whitewashes Massive FBI Failure in 2015 ISIS Texas Terror Attack

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, March 26, 2017:

“Complexities.”

That’s the excuse invoked at the end of a 60 Minutes segment that aired Sunday evening to explain why the FBI failed to stop two ISIS-inspired terrorists in direct contact with two ISIS terror recruiters. The attackers rolled up in a car loaded with guns and ammunition to the “Draw Mohammad” cartoon contest event in Garland, Texas, on May 3, 2015:

What 60 Minutes, fronted by Anderson Cooper and echoed in an interview with Seamus Hughes of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, explains is that FBI sources are stretched so thin that there’s no possible way to devote resources to every single potential threat.

I’ll grant that FBI counter-terrorism resources are overloaded WAY BEYOND capacity. That’s an appropriate and warranted discussion for policymakers to address. Also, in the real world of law enforcement, there are indeed many “complexities” during a case that lead to some very important investigative clues being missed — especially when FBI resources are overstretched beyond capacity.

But these “complexities” don’t even remotely begin to explain the massive failure by the FBI in this particular case. Like a blanket that’s too short that you can never turn the right way to cover everything, invoking “complexities” to explain the FBI failure in the attempted Garland attack doesn’t cover the very issues raised by 60 Minutes in their own report. Yet “complexities” is all that 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper, and Seamus Hughes give viewers.

So here’s the real clarity in this story: at the time of the Garland attack, as the two terrorists, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, were traveling in their car loaded with guns and ammo, they were being closely tailed by an undercover FBI agent (not an informant — an actual FBI agent) whom they had previously been in contact with on social media.

The undercover agent even snapped pictures of the attack site just seconds before Simpson and Soofi jumped out of their car with guns blazing:

60 Minutes helpfully provides the undercover FBI agent’s picture taken seconds before the attack showing two individuals, including a police officer, who were shot at by the pair:

And they provide a helpful graphic of how close the undercover FBI agent was tailing Simpson and Soofi (see the terrorists’ car turning into the Curtis Culwell Center, and the FBI undercover agent following immediately behind):

And yet, according to a statement provided to 60 Minutes, the FBI claims they had no advanced knowledge of the attack:

We wanted to ask the FBI those same questions. But the bureau would not agree to an interview. All the FBI would give us was this email statement. It reads: “There was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.”

This is not even remotely believable.

The information about the undercover FBI agent being at the scene was already known before the 60 Minutes broadcast, given some details were included in court documents for a related terrorism case in Ohio this past August:

I noted that here at PJ Media, while mentioning the (at that point) dozen “Known Wolf” terror cases during the Obama administration:

But the FBI undercover agent being at the Garland attack site was more than coincidence. In fact, the FBI agent had been in contact with Simpson on social media in the three weeks prior to the attack, and at one point had even told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” as the attorney in the Ohio case explained to 60 Minutes:

Anderson Cooper: After the trial, you discovered that the government knew a lot more about the Garland attack than they had let on?

Dan Maynard: That’s right. Yeah. After the trial we found out that they had had an undercover agent who had been texting with Simpson, less than three weeks before the attack, to him “Tear up Texas.” Which to me was an encouragement to Simpson.

The man he’s talking about was a special agent of the FBI, working undercover posing as an Islamic radical.  The government sent attorney Dan Maynard 60 pages of declassified encrypted messages between the agent and Elton Simpson — and argued “Tear up Texas” was not an incitement. But Simpson’s response was incriminating, referring to the attack against cartoonists at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo: “bro, you don’t have to say that … ” He wrote “you know what happened in Paris … so that goes without saying. No need to be direct.”

Again, this is information that was reported months ago:

The FBI isn’t too interested in answering questions about their undercover agent’s encrypted communications with would-be Garland killer Elton Simpon, as Daily Beast reporter Katie Zavadski found out when she asked them directly:

Press officers for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, the Cleveland FBI Office, and the Department of Justice declined to comment beyond the affidavit. FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty hung up on The Daily Beast after being asked about the “tear up Texas” text.

Complexities. But as the late Billy Mays would say: “But wait! There’s more!”

Unmentioned in the 60 Minutes report: the FBI sent a bulletin to Garland police hours before the event warning that Simpson — whom the Justice Department had already unsuccessfully prosecuted previously for his role in a terror cell — might be on his way to the Garland event, even including his photo and his license plate number:

FBI Director James Comey even admitted they had information, saying:

We developed information just hours before the event that Simpson might be interested in going to Garland.

Garland police claim they never saw the FBI’s bulletin. But 60 Minutes never bothers to mention it at all.

Also unmentioned was the considerable online chatter in ISIS circles about the event, and in some cases directly threatening it.

As I reported exclusively here at PJ Media at the time, what initiated most of the chatter was the attempt by the only two Muslim members of Congress — Keith Ellison and Andre Carson — to prevent Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from attending the event:

The chatter began when news broke that two Muslim congressmen, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, had appealed to Secretary of State John Kerry to deny entry into the U.S. for Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Wilders was scheduled to be the featured speaker at Sunday’s cartoon contest.

One law enforcement source who was monitoring potential threats to the event told PJ Media the following:

[Ellison and Carson] clearly set things off. Nothing was being said until that news story came out, and then the usual suspects began to talk about it. By the time the weekend rolled around, there were clear and identifiable incitements calling for an attack on the event.

So there was considerable ISIS chatter about the event, even incitement calling for an attack on the event. That concerned the Texas Department of Public Safety so much they committed considerable resources, including creating what one Texas DPS described to me as “a death trap” for anyone who attempted to attack the event.

The online chatter caused no concern for the FBI or any other federal agency. Again, as I reported exclusively, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security sent out a “Joint Intelligence Bulletin” to law enforcement four days before the Garland event dismissing any threat:

Their reasoning was astounding:

Although past events involving the alleged defamation of Islam and the prophet, Muhammad, have resulted in threats or overt acts of violence overseas, we have not yet seen such violence in the United States. The most frequent reaction among US-based homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) is discussion and verbal disapproval via online communication platforms, including websites with violent extremist content and social media sites.† We assess it is unlikely that any one event perceived to defame Islam would alone mobilize HVEs to violence.

Because such an attack had not happened here yet, as it had just four months prior in the attack on the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, it was unlikely to happen here, the FBI and DHS said.

The FBI and virtually all federal agencies were following a narrative enforced by the Obama White House that ISIS was the “JV team” and posed no domestic terror threat to the United States. That’s not where the facts led, but it was the narrative blinders that the FBI and Director James Comey were willing to assume.

How much of that narrative enforcement is still in place? No one really knows, and 60 Minutes doesn’t bother to ask.

So at this point we have:

  • An undercover FBI agent tailing the Garland terror attackers to the Draw Muhammed event
  • The FBI agent in direct communication with Elton Simpson telling him to “Tear up Texas”
  • The FBI sending Garland police a bulletin with Simpson’s picture and license plate warning he may show up hours before the attack
  • Considerable online chatter by ISIS operatives, including direct incitement calling for an attack on the event

For those outside the political/media establishment bubble, these might seem to be really important investigative clues that raise serous concerns about the FBI’s claims they had no prior warning to the Garland attack. But for 60 Minutes and Seamus Hughes of GWU’s Program on Extremism, all their viewers are left with in conclusion are … “complexities”:

The FBI’s actions around this foiled attack offer a rare glimpse into the complexities faced by those fighting homegrown extremism. Today, the battle often begins online where identifying terrorists can be the difference between a massacre, and the one that never occurred in Garland, Texas.

Anderson Cooper: People brag about stuff. People talk big. One of the difficulties for the FBI is trying to figure out who’s just talking and who actually may execute an attack.

Seamus Hughes: That’s the hardest part when you talk about this, right. There’s a lot of guys who talk about how great ISIS is. It’s very hard to tell when someone crosses that line. And in most of the cases, you see the FBI has some touchpoint with those individuals beforehand. There had been an assessment, a preliminary investigation or a full investigation. It’s just very hard to know when somebody decides to jump.

It should come as no surprise that Seamus Hughes trains FBI officials in knowing when somebody decides to jump.

Yes, that’s right. 60 Minutes turned to, as its sole outside “expert,” one of the FBI’s own advisers and terrorism training instructors.

That said, let me suggest that when one of your undercover agents is tailing a car with two ISIS operatives, including one you’ve already tried unsuccessfully to put in prison on previous terrorism charges, loaded with guns and ammunition and headed towards an event that has been targeted by ISIS supporters on social media: that might be an indication that somebody is prepared to jump.

Ironically, after their Garland attack whitewash, 60 Minutes continued their broadcast with a segment on “Fake News”:

However, Hughes’ colleagues over at the GWU “Project on Extremism” seemed pretty happy with how it all turned out:

No doubt a contract for FBI training is on its way to GWU right now.

Five Days and Two ‘Known Wolf’ Terror Attacks, Yet No Apparent Concern from Western Governments

PJ Media, by Patrick  Poole, March 23, 2017:

We’ve seen two more “Known Wolf” terror attacks in the West, and yet Western government authorities seem unwilling to acknowledge, let alone begin to address, the “Known Wolf” terror problem.

I first identified the “Known Wolf” terror trend and coined the term in October 2014 here at PJ Media, noting that many, possibly most, Islamic terrorists who actually committed terrorism in the West were already known to Western law enforcement, national security agencies, and intelligence services. 

Yet sufficient action was not taken to prevent them from conducting terror attacks:

Since then, I’ve chronicled (in nearly two dozen articles) the continuation of the “Known Wolf” terrorism trend, including the Berlin Christmas market terrorist that killed 12 and wounded 56 others:

In September, I noted that 12 of the 14 Islamic terror attacks in the U.S. during the Obama administration were by suspects already known to authorities:

Earlier today, British Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons that yesterday’s still-unnamed Westminster terror killer had already been investigated by MI5 over his extremist views:

The same is true for the Paris Orly airport attacker this past weekend, who was also already known to French authorities:

What’s the use of having a “terror watch list” if all Western authorities are going to do is watch them kill the citizens they are paid to protect?

Even right now, British authorities are invoking the long-discredited “lone wolf” terrorism theory to explain yesterday’s Westminster attack, including British Defense Minister Michael Fallon:

Meanwhile, in a series of raids, British authorities are arresting a number of people in connection with yesterday’s attack:

Naturally, many have had enough of the “lone wolf” myth and would prefer to hear the truth:

If Western authorities continue to ignore the “Known Wolf” terror problem, they will continue to lose legitimacy with the citizens they serve. And some will consider taking matters into their own hands. That’s dangerous for everyone.

Has any Western politician been forced to resign? Has any law enforcement or intelligence official ever been fired for failing to prevent a “Known Wolf” terror attack? How many more citizens need to be killed before Western authorities acknowledge and take action in response to the growing “Known Wolf” terror problem?

If the reaction to the Orly and Westminster attacks in the past week are any indication, the answer to that last question is apparently “more.”

_____________________

Below, find Poole’s prior coverage of the “Known Wolf” scandal:

Oct. 24, 2014: ‘Lone Wolf’ or ‘Known Wolf’: The Ongoing Counter-Terrorism Failure

Dec. 15, 2014: Sydney Hostage Taker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Jan. 7, 2015: Paris Terror Attack Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 3, 2015: French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 15, 2015: Copenhagen Killer Was yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Feb. 26, 2015: Islamic State Beheader ‘Jihadi John’ Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Apr. 22, 2015: Botched Attack on Paris Churches Another Case of “Known Wolf” Terrorism

May 4, 2015: Texas Attack Is Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

June 26, 2015: France’s Beheading Terrorist Was Well-Known By Authorities

July 16, 2015: Report: Chattanooga Jihadist Was Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist, Anonymous Feds Dispute

Aug. 22, 2015: European Train Attacker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Oct 14, 2015: Yet Again: Turkey, Israel Terror Attacks Committed by “Known Wolves”

Nov 14, 2015: One Paris Attacker Was Previously Known to Authorities, Marks Fifth ‘Known Wolf” Attack in France This Year

Feb 16, 2016: Machete Attack in Ohio Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

May 16, 2016: News Reports Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ U.S. Terrorists

June 12, 2016: Orlando Night Club Attack by “Known Wolf” Terrorist Previously Investigated by FBI

July 14, 2016: Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate “Known Wolf” Terrorism Problem

July 26, 2016: ISIS Suspect in Normandy Priest’s Killing Already Known to French Authorities

August 10, 2016: Canadian ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist Planned Suicide Bombing of Major City, Killed in Overnight Police Operation

August 19, 2016: Man Who Stabbed Rabbi Thursday in Strasbourg, France Involved in Prior Attack

Sept. 20, 2016: NY-NJ Bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami Already Known to Law Enforcement Authorities

Sept. 28, 2016:“Known Wolf” SCANDAL: In at Least 12 of the 14 Terror Attacks Under Obama, FBI Already Knew Attackers

Dec. 21, 2016:Suspect Sought for Deadly Berlin Terror Attack, Anis Amri, Yet Another Known Wolf

***

Update:

London Terror Killer Named as Convicted Criminal Khalid Masood