From France, we learn that a follower of the Religion of Peace was arrested for plotting to blow up the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and a nuclear power plant. If successful, the attacks would have struck at icons of Western culture, as well as murdering many non-Muslim people.
The alleged perp was an Algerian butcher (!) residing in the south of France who was getting mass murder hints from his al Qaeda pals.
The case is yet another example that Muslims are a bad bet as immigrants — remember that 9/11 attack where the killers yelled Allahu Ackbar? Let’s just stop admitting Muslims into American communities before our luck runs out.
French authorities say they foiled an Islamic terrorist plot reportedly targeting the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and a nuclear power plant last year.
The revelation comes as the country unveiled new anti-terror rules which included a proposal to ban terror suspects from leaving the country if it is thought they intend to fight abroad, The Telegraph reported.
French authorities revealed they arrested a 29-year-old Algerian butcher living in southern France June 2013, after they found coded messages between him and a high-ranking Al Qaeda member discussing how “to conduct jihad in the place you are currently,” according to Le Parisien.
The suspect, identified in the newspaper report as Ali M, reportedly said he would target French landmarks including the Eiffel Tower, Louvre and “cultural events that take place in the south of France in which thousands of Christians gather for a month.” Continue reading this article
Member of the Dutch Parliament Geert Wilders (pictured) remains the rare elected official to speak out about the threat from Muslim immigration. He has paid a high price for his courage: not only does he need 24/7 security because of serious Islamic death threats, but he has also undergone two trials for hate speech in the Netherlands.
Wilders’ common-sense approach is that national security begins with keeping enemies out of your country. (Curiously, in our dangerous but politically correct world, that idea is considered controversial in some quarters, like the open borders bunch.)
The Wilders’ top-ten national security list includes ending diverse immigration from Islamic nations and encouraging “voluntary repatriation” of those already in the Netherlands. (Would candidate Mitt Romney have escaped criticism if he had used that phrase rather than “self-deportation”?)
Wilders focuses on specifics for the Netherlands, but the sensible recommendations would be a good program for all Western nations, many of which erroneously believe they can have both national security and liberal immigration.
Ten concrete measures to prevent Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands.
In several Western countries, the authorities are concerned about the security risk posed by young Muslim immigrants who went to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad and are now returning home. They are considered the most serious security risk in decades.
The risk is not just theoretical. Indeed, on May 24, Mehdi Nemmouche, a young Muslim with a French passport, went on a killing spree with a Kalashnikov assault rifle in the Jewish Museum in Brussels. He killed four people. Nemmouche had previously been in Syria, where he was trained in guerrilla warfare.
During the past three years, thousands of young Islamic immigrants from all Western countries, Europe, Australia, America and even Russia, have gone to fight in Syria, where they have committed the most horrible atrocities. Some of them were killed in action, while others have since returned home. They carry Western passports but they hate the West. They walk our streets as ticking time bombs, eager to cause as much havoc in our cities as they have caused in Syria.
The Dutch-Turkish jihadist Yilmaz (center), who was previously a soldier in the Dutch army, poses with fellow jihadists in Syria.
The West cannot just sit idly by and wait for the next terror attack to happen. We must protect ourselves. If we do not, the barbaric scenes that play today in Syria and Iraq will soon be repeated in our countries. Ordinary people are well aware of the urgency of the problem. Last week, I proposed ten concrete measures to prevent Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands. A poll showed that a large majority of the Dutch support the plan. Continue reading this article
In advance of the Boston Marathon run on Monday with police-state security measures following last year’s jihad bombings, local media sought to comfort local Muslims that they were not under suspicion in an article titled, “Inclusive spirit reassures Muslims after bombings” (linked below).
The caption of the article’s first photo: “Hamza Syed braced for an anti-Muslim backlash that never happened.”
Below, one explosion at last year’s Boston Marathon.
Despite the lack of lynch mobs or other backlash against Muslims after 9/11 and other Islamic attacks, the Allah bunch residing in America complains that their sensitive feelings are hurt by surveillance and other normal precautions to having a gaggle of potential enemies living in the country.
Why do Americans feel they have to “reassure” Muslims of goodwill? On the contrary, Muslims should be trying to convince Americans that they are not murderous religious fanatics. Allah’s gangsters have killed Americans on our own soil in the thousands, yet we are supposed to feel guilty for not trusting Muslims.
Some will fall under the swoon of Islamic teachings, and part of the modern jihad message is the alleged victimhood of Muslims worldwide, even though they are usually the perps. Here in America, CAIR urges Muslims to report the slightest affront as a hate crime, following the victim theme. In fact, FBI statistics for years show that Jews are five times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims, who are down the list.
The 2014 budget for the Department of Homeland Security was $49.7 billion. Remember that the DHS was organized as a response to the 9/11 attacks, even though hundreds of billions were already spent on the Pentagon which was supposed to protect America.
One could reasonably regard the $49.7 billion DHS budget as one cost of Muslim immigration. Are the felafels worth it? Why does America continue to allow Muslim immigration?
As for the article about adorable Muslims, brace for extensive silliness. My favorite (bad) remark is from a Muslim who apparently has not read the Koran and its 100+ exhortations to violence against infidels: “Now, when an act of terror occurs, people can see it for what it is: someone exploiting religion, someone with serious issues.”
No, doofus, the jihadists are following their religion!
Sept. 11, 2001, ruptured 13-year-old Hamza Syed’s world. Being Muslim instantly became the only part of his identity that seemed to matter; kids at his school in Lynn besieged him with questions he could not answer. He had immigrated to the United States from Pakistan at age 3, but he no longer felt allowed to call himself American.
A year ago, after the Boston Marathon bombings, Syed braced himself for another anti-Muslim backlash. It never happened.
“I grew up being an outsider, feeling like an outsider, and there wasn’t any moment really after the Boston Marathon where I had that feeling of being an outsider again,” he said. “I grieved with everyone. . . . I could understand their feelings, and they could understand mine, without there being an asterisk next to it.”
On Monday, Syed expects to run the Boston Marathon for the first time, an act he sees as an expression of his love for his resilient city and for its embrace of diversity.
“That is what the Boston Marathon this year is really going to be about,” he said. “I want to say that I was there, that I took part in it.”
To be sure, there were isolated displays of Islamophobia in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings. A woman wearing a hijab was assaulted on a street in Malden. Strangers sent hateful e-mails to Boston’s mosques. Some Muslims feared being questioned by law enforcement or seethed over a tabloid’s portrayal of two innocent Massachusetts men as possibly connected to the bombings.
But the broader tableau showed a city that has become more welcoming of Muslims in the years since the 2001 attacks, many local Muslims said. The scale of the two tragedies was very different, but many Muslims said improved interfaith cooperation and increasingly diverse schools and workplaces contributed to a change in tone. It also seemed, they said, that their non-Muslim neighbors had grown more knowledgeable and less fearful in a dozen years of discussing terrorism, war, national security, and religious liberty in the public square.
“Now, when an act of terror occurs, people can see it for what it is: someone exploiting religion, someone with serious issues,” said Jalon Fowler, a 38-year-old Muslim who ran in last year’s Marathon and will compete again this year.
After the Marathon bombings, many Muslims said they felt reassured by gestures of support and concern from friends and coworkers, from local politicians and clergy of other faiths. Bostonians, they said, seemed to understand that most Muslims were as horrified at the violence on Boylston Street as everyone else was.
“There is never a silver lining to mass murder, or attempted mass murder,” said Imam William Suhaib Webb, spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury, the city’s largest mosque. “But what we learned is, this is a really great city with incredibly sincere people.
“It was like, we’re together, we all anguish about what happened, and we are going to try to speak to the problem together.”
Mosque fears eased Greater Boston’s two most prominent mosques were inundated with press calls and television cameras after the bombings, especially the Islamic Society of Boston in Cambridge, where suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev occasionally worshipped.
Ismail Fenni, acting imam of the Cambridge mosque, tried to field reporters’ questions and to respond to the stunned congregation, few of whom had known the Tsarnaevs.
On April 15, 2013, two bombs went off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and seriously injuring 264 including 14 persons losing limbs. It’s likely the casualty list would have been longer if not for the many medically trained people at the race finish who provided excellent first aid to the injured in the early minutes.
Another casualty was young MIT police officer Sean Collier, who was murdered later by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when the brothers were trying to escape.
We found that several red flags and warnings were missed. We found that Tamerlan was on the radar of the FBI and somehow dropped off. We found that Tamerlan travelled to Dagestan, known for its Chechen terrorists. This is precisely what the Russian letter warned our Intelligence Community and FBI about. He came back even more radicalized. We also found that unfortunately Customs, FBI, and the IC somehow missed it. Arrogantly, some US officials said “It would not have made a difference” if they had known about his overseas travel. We now know that a check of his public social media would have shown indicators such as Jihadists video postings. His Mosque had seen escalating behavior as well. It likely would have been clear that he was becoming more and more of a threat to the community.
Which takes me to me to my last point: State and Local police have a strong role in Counter Terrorism. They know the streets better than anybody and they know the local threats. The Boston Police Department should have been given more information throughout the entire process. They must know the terror threats in their own backyards. This process in my judgment has to change.
Meanwhile, the administration does not like the “T” word applied to its watch. Monday’s Statement by the President referred to the attack as a “tragedy” and emphasized the heroic response of Bostonians.
Robert Spencer reviewed the event and focused on FBI dereliction — even though the government allowing Muslim immigration to continue is the worst failure:
With the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings now here (April 15), the New York Times made yet another attempt to exonerate the Obama Administration of responsibility for one of its manifest failures, claiming that an inspector general’s report on the bombings was an “exoneration of the F.B.I.,” as it showed that “the Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack.”
See? The bombing was all the fault of that scoundrel Putin. It had nothing to do with the FBI, because of fecklessness and political correctness, failing to act properly on information the Russians gave them.
Full disclosure: I used to give FBI agents and other law enforcement and military personnel training on the teachings of Islam about jihad warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, so that they would understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the United States as a free society, and be better equipped to counter them. I provided this training free of charge, out of a sense of patriotic duty, and it was well received: I received certificates of appreciation from the United States Central Command and the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group.
But as I explain in detail in my book Arab Winter Comes to America, all that ended on October 19, 2011, when Islamic supremacist advocacy groups, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that FBI counter-terror trainers (including me) and training materials that referred to Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism be discarded, and agents educated by them be retrained. John Brennan, then the U.S. Homeland Security Advisor and now the director of the CIA, readily agreed in a response that was written on White House stationery – thereby emphasizing how seriously the Obama Administration took this demand. Continue reading this article
He discussed the book on CBN Monday, the day of the book’s release.
There’s a lot to admire about Spencer’s scholarship, although he curiously didn’t mention diverse Muslim immigration as a major transporter of jihad around the world in his interview on CBN. How does he think it gets here? (Amazon does’t have its “look inside” feature hooked up yet, so the inquiring reader can’t check the index for listings of immigration.)
The passivity of European nations and the US is hard to figure however.
Another interesting bit of news is how California State Senator Leland Yee was caught in a sting in which he thought he was selling heavy weapons to the Philippines jihadists from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. When I wrote my report on the Yee arrest on Wednesday, the initial description vaguely referred to “illegal gun-trafficking.” Now we are learning more.
Leland wasn’t directing a few handguns to some gangsters in Chinatown or Mexico; he was trying to sell missiles to a separatist army in the Philippines. Fortunately, Yee was being caught in a sting, so extra bombs weren’t in danger of being sent to a long-time friend and ally of America. In addition, Yee was a loudmouth gun grabber, so he is the king of hypocrites even among the weasel political class.
The Moro Islamic separatists have been waging a war against the Filipino people and their government for 40 years in which tens of thousands of lives have been lost. A peace treaty has recently been signed, where the Muslims get an “autonomous region” in return for their ceasing to kill infidels. For a while at least, but that’s how Islam’s “spread by the sword” strategy has succeeded over the last 1400 years.
If you thought the charges against Leland Yee would be bad, you had no idea. As in, he offered to set up an arms deal with Islamic rebels for $2 million in cash. As in, he has ties to a gangster named Shrimp Boy. As in, he makes corrupt state senator Clay Davis from The Wire look like George Washington. You can read the whole affidavit here, but it’s really, really long, so we’ve gone ahead and pulled out the highlights. The allegations (and for now they are only that—allegations) are cinematic, staggering, and remarkable in their scope. Here they are, in descending order of sheeeeeeeeeeeit:
Yee told an FBI agent to give him a shopping list of guns: “Senator Yee asked [the agent] to provide an inventory list of desired weapons [...] [The agent] told Yee he would deliver $2,000,000 cash.”
Yee could arrange from some serious firepower: “[The agent] asked about shoulder fired automatic weapons. Senator Yee responded by saying the automatic weapons are the equivalent to the “M16″ Automatic Service Weapon [...] [The agent] asked about the availability of shoulder fire missiles or rockets. Senator Yee responded ‘I told him about the rockets and things like that.’”
Yee took personal responsibility for delivering the weapons: ”Senator Yee said, ‘We’re interested’ in arranging the weapons deal [...] and said of the arms dealer, ‘He’s going to rely on me, because ultimately it’s going to be me. [The agent] stated he would compensate Yee for brokering the relationship and arms deal.”
Yee was in it for the cash: “Senator Yee said, ‘Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the good? I think we can get the goods.’” Continue reading this article
On Saturday I made a rare trek to see a first-run movie, because of my curiosity about Hollywood’s treatment of an instance of defending western civilization. The new movie Monuments Men modifies the true story of the World War II officers who rescued works of art from Hitler’s theft. A project of George Clooney, the film is positive toward saving even religious statues and paintings, presumably because Nazis are a liberal-approved enemy, safe to denigrate.
In the trailer, actor-director-writer Clooney (as real-life Lieutenant Commander George L. Stout) says, “You can wipe out an entire generation, you can burn their homes to the ground, and somehow they’ll still find their way back. But if you destroy their history, destroy their achievements, then it’s as if they never existed. That’s what Hitler wants, that is exactly what we’re fighting for.”
The sentiment is a very worthwhile one and needs to be repeated often these days when the achievements of European civilization are belittled by the left.
The movie suffers from the Hollywood prime directive of entertainment. So the beginning seems a bit like The Dirty Dozen Art Historians, as the men are assembled for service (although the number is seven). The nod toward comedy is shown by the inclusion of John Goodman and Bill Murray appearing as art rescuers. There’s nothing wrong with humor-based soldier bonding; in fact, it’s a staple of war movies. But the comic asides add to a certain lack of focus, particularly when the group is separated to show the search for hidden stolen art around Europe. Still, there’s a lot to like — a first-rate cast, adventure mixed with a great purpose and the happy ending of cultural treasures being saved from oblivion. Thumbs up!
For another realistic presentation see the 2006 documentary The Rape of Europa, which can be found online. An earlier Hollywood effort is The Train, a 1964 film by John Frankenheimer starring Burt Lancaster as a French resistance engineer who appropriates a trainload of stolen art from the Nazis. You can watch a free version, albeit with Spanish subtitles here. In addition, Robert Edsel has a YouTube channel with some interesting videos.
But even with the recent film, Hollywood remains an undependable defender of foundational western values like free speech. The Investigative Project has a list of 10 mainstream films banned in the Middle East, including The Matrix Reloaded and The Wrestler. Hollywood’s response has been to practice self-censorship, particularly obvious in the disappearance of Muslim terrorists in film and TV, notably in the hit series 24 after Muslim complaints. Terrorist bombers are now Serbians, South Africans — anything but Muslims even though Allah’s servants kill daily in the name of Islam.
And what about the art that was rescued in WWII? Will Hollywood liberals defend it as enthusiastically from Muslims as from Hitler? Islam forbids the celebration of the human body, particularly when unclothed, which is a staple of European culture starting with the Greeks. Plus Muslims can hardly abide the existence of women, much less sympathetic portraits of them hanging in galleries.
In 2012, the Louvre opened a wing of Islamic art, but that gesture won’t save the Paris museum if even a tiny percent of France’s five million Muslims decide to tear it apart. The Muslims destroy their own heritage without a second thought, as when jihadists leveled historic Sufi sites in Timbuktu in 2012. Muslim immigrants have even less respect for the infidel culture they chose to inhabit far from dar al-Islam. The cultural conflict in Europe can only worsen over time given the demographic change caused by the disaster of Muslim immigration.
Today however, Hollywood has in its way stood on the side of freedom against tyranny. Let’s hope it doesn’t forget to defend western values in the future.
The current administration apparently believes that welcoming Muslim refugees is more important than national security. Otherwise it wouldn’t have unilaterally loosened the rules by which persons having terrorist ties are kept out. Now they can get in.
Apparently, the reduction of standards was done to enable more Syrians to enter the US (something that has been in the pipeline for a while):
President Barack Obama’s administration announced on Wednesday that it had eased some immigration rules to allow more of the millions of Syrians forced from their homes during the country’s three-year civil war to come to the United States.
Their suffering is regrettable, but importing more thousands more unfriendlies into America is not the answer. Why don’t majority Muslim nations take them — why is the West supposed to admit likely enemies?
CIS’s Jessica Vaughan pointed out that the executive order removes the burden of proof from the applicant, even though the political asylum program has a 70 percent fraud rate already. One example discussed was the Tsarnaev family who received asylum without a background check, the two sons of whom bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three:
Note to White House: the country needs tighter standards on who is admitted into America, not a loosening during this dangerous time. National security must be the top concern of government, not generosity toward sketchy foreigners.
The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups, in a move one senator called “deeply alarming.”
The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided “limited material support” to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.
Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.
“The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable,” Leahy said in a statement. “It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of terrorist activities.”
But critics say despite the good intentions, the change raises security concerns, particularly after a report published Thursday on asylum fraud.
“In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further.”
Sessions also complained that the administration was, on its own, altering the Immigration and Nationality Act. “What is the point of Congress passing a law if the administration abuses its ‘discretion’ to say that law simply no longer applies?” he said. Continue reading this article
New York resident and writer Daniel Greenfield (aka Sultan Knish) has written about how Brooklyn has changed from a working class American town into a place where Islam’s supremacists have their own neighborhoods. The place is so insular that the ability to speak English is no longer needed to get by.
Below, a Muslim street in Brooklyn where there are no women or girls to be seen.
As a starting point, Greenfield uses the recent throat-slice murder of a successful Bangladeshi immigrant by a young tenant, a new immigrant (Tenant nearly beheaded Brooklyn landlord who had ‘humiliated’ him for being short on cash). Do the newbies arrive with unrealistic expectations of immediate success and riches, then become angry when they realize work is involved? The accused killer, Mohammed Siddiquee, had robbed the victim’s safe of $20,000 and was about to board a plane to Kuwait when police arrested him.
Many Muslims don’t deal well with the normal stress of immigration, in part because their attitude of Islamic superiority makes them inflexible to an extreme degree. As Greenfield observes, Islam’s “immigration is also a Jihad, a form of supremacist manifest destiny to colonize” so when bumps along the road occur for individual Muslims, they may become homicidally infuriated when thwarted.
Walk along Church Avenue and turn east onto McDonald Avenue and you will see where the old standards of working class Brooklyn, aging homes with faded American flags and loose siding, surly bars tucked into the shadows of street corners and the last video stores hanging on to a dying industry give way to mosques and grocery stores selling goat meat.
Mosques grow like mushrooms in basements, cell phone stores offer easy ways to wire money back to Bangladesh and old men glare at interlopers, especially if they are infidel women.
This is where Mohammed Siddiquee settled a dispute the old-fashioned way by beheading his landlord.
Mohammed wasn’t the first man in Brooklyn to use violence to settle a rental dispute, but beheadings are more traditional in his native Bangladesh than in Brooklyn, though over in neighboring Queens, Ashrafuzzaman Khan, Bangladesh’s most wanted war criminal, heads up the local Islamic Circle of North America, whose Islamist thugs beheaded poets and buried professors in mass graves.
Here in Kensington, where the alphabet streets that march across Brooklyn down to the ocean begin, the bars retreat along with the alphabet from those areas marked by the crescent and the angry glare. And there is another one like it at the other end of the alphabet where the Atlantic Ocean terminates the letters at Avenue Z bookending the Brooklyn alphabet with angry old men and phone cards for Bangladesh.
These spots aren’t no-go zones yet. There aren’t enough young men with too much welfare and time on their hands who have learned that the police will back off when they burn enough things and councilmen will visit to get their side of the story. That generation will grow up being neither one thing nor the other, ricocheting from American pop culture to the Koran, from parties with the infidels to mosque study sessions until they explode from the contradictions the way that the Tsarnaevs, who huffed pot and the Koran in equal proportions, did.
It isn’t the old men who plant bombs near 8-year-olds. It isn’t the young women laughing with their friends outside a pizza parlor, knowing that in a year or two they will have to go back home for an arranged marriage. It is the young men who call themselves Freddy or Mo at the local high school or community college, who drink and do drugs and who all their American friends swear aren’t serious about religion, until they suddenly become fatally serious.
For now the Bangladeshi settlements in Brooklyn are quiet places where the tenements and shops close off the streets into small private worlds with their own justice systems, feuds and secrets.
“I feel like I’m living in my own country,” the editor of one of the Bangladeshi newspapers in New York, said. “You don’t have to learn English to live here. That’s a great thing!”
Overhead may be the same sky, but Little Bangladesh has been cut off from Brooklyn and attached to a country thousands of miles away. Immigrants step off a plane from Bangladesh at JFK airport, get into a taxi driven by a Bangladeshi playing Bengali pop tapes and step out into a small slice of Bangladesh on McDonald Avenue. Continue reading this article
Congressman Mike McCaul, Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, appeared on Fox News Monday to draw attention to Obama’s inaccurate characterization of the war on terror. The President routinely says, “Al Qaeda is on the run” which, strictly speaking, may be accurate. But other jihadist enterprises are on the march throughout the world. The murder of the American ambassador to Libya a year ago was a big win from the viewpoint of hostile Muslims everywhere, and that nation’s assembly recently voted to follow sharia law.
As Rep. McCaul remarked on Fox:
“The president has this narrative that I believe is a false narrative that gives a false sense of security, that since the killing of bin Laden everything is fine, al-Qaida is on the run, and this war on terrorism is over. And quite the contrary. I would say it’s not a pre-9/11 threat as he indicates, but rather a threat that spreads like wildfire, like a spiderweb across northern Africa. We’ve seen Egypt fall, we’ve see Libya fall, this is where they look for power vacuums and they breed and thrive in those vacuums, Syria now the culmination of the Sunni-Shia conflict is perhaps one of the biggest breeding training grounds in the world with jihadists pouring in from all over the world, not just from the Middle East but from Europe and the United States. [. . .]
But the smaller-scale attacks, like we saw in Boston earlier this year, we are not protected from. They are much more difficult to detect, deter and disrupt. So when he says we’ve taken out core al-Qaida, he’s talking about a very, very small faction of radical extremists.”
CANDY CROWLEY: The big question that’s always asked, are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago? In general?
FEINSTEIN: I don’t think so. I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there’s huge malevolence out there.
CROWLEY: So congressman, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, oh, we’re safer. Do you agree?
ROGERS: Oh, I absolutely agree that we’re not safer today for the same very reasons.
So why doesn’t the government stop admitting Muslim immigrants? Doesn’t the country have enough diverse hostility yet?
This ABC story is an interesting follow-up to an old story, that of refugees brought from Iraq and Afghanistan turning out to be serious bad guys. The new information seems to be details about how jihadist soldiers were discovered. I’ve been writing for a couple years about the now-imprisoned Iraqi refugees, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi (shown below), and what the affair indicates about America’s haphazard refugee program. It’s good to see the case hasn’t disappeared from media interest.
This sloppiness is not new news — many Americans can remember the decades of wrangling over Ukrainian immigrant John Demjanjuk about whether he was war criminal in a Nazi death camp. But at least as a Ukrainian, he was culturally unlikely to wage war against Western people, something you cannot say about Muslim immigrants.
One important fact tucked into the ABC piece was the amount of time devoted to rescreening to find enemy soldiers, that the FBI assigned “hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones” for fingerprints matching those of refugees. That is a lot of time spent that could be better used to keep enemies out in the first place.
Detecting “bad” Iraqis among the non-hostiles is a fool’s errand. If we send our armed forces to smack down jihadists in foreign countries, that should be the extent of our efforts. Our immigration door should be limited to friendly and productive folks. And why admit Muslims as immigrants at all?
Big government appears to work as efficiently for refugee and immigrant screening as it does for ObamaCare. As a result, authorities are now pursuing “dozens” of cases of jihadist enemies admitted to our country as refugees.
Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq — prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists’ fingerprints.
“We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that,” FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News’ “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline”.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more than that,” said House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. “And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me.” Continue reading this article
David Blunkett has observed that the EU-mandated opening of Britain to the 29 million people of Bulgaria and Romania in a couple months may cause a violent reaction among the citizens.
Blunkett complained rather weakly about the backward behavior of Roma persons, and urged them to stop littering. He practically called Roma children feral, referring to them as “living in the edge of woods, not going to school.” Nevertheless he stressed that British people should accept still more unwanted immigrants, even though an October poll revealed that two-thirds of respondents said they wanted drastic action to reduce immigration.
Perhaps Blunkett had read the recent Daily Mail article in which the mayor of two dirt-poor Romanian villages opined that up to half of local residents would move to the UK when the border opens next year. “In January, the only thing left will be the goat,” he said.
The former Home Secretary is concerned that racial tensions could lead to rioting like that seen in the North of England in 2001.
In an interview with BBC Radio, he urged Roma from Slovakia to “change their culture”, saying their children needed to be sent to school, they need to stop dumping their rubbish and avoid loitering in the street.
Without such changes, communities could ‘explode’, leading to riots on a similar scale to those in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley.
“If everything exploded, if things went wrong, the community would obviously be devastated,” he said.
“We saw this is Bradford, Burnley and Oldham all those years ago when I first became Home Secretary. If things implode it’s not outside here that cops it, it’s the community.”
The 2001 riots were sparked by clashes between Asian communities and far-Right groups such as the National Front and British National Party. Over 200 people were jailed as a result.
Mr Blunkett admitted that indigenous locals should be careful not to “stir up hate”, but said that they were entitled to “grumble” about the migrants appearing in their areas. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.