Recently in Terrorism Category

Allahu Akbar, Once Again

| 3 Comments
When I first saw the CNN coverage of the Munich massacre this afternoon, I noticed that the broadcasters went out of their way, with exactly zero evidence, to suggest that the killer might have been a right wing extremist, not a Jihadist.

Tonight's CNN story has this buried after the tenth paragraph:

A witness who will only be identified as Lauretta told CNN her son was in a bathroom with a shooter at the restaurant.

"That's where he loaded his weapon," she said. "I hear like an alarm and boom, boom, boom... And he's still killing the children. The children were sitting to eat. They can't run."

Lauretta said she heard the gunman say, "Allahu Akbar," or God is great. "I know this because I'm Muslim. I hear this and I only cry." 

Still, at least the network was honest enough to report:

Many children were among the casualties. Police said 16 people remain hospitalized.

The shooting comes as recent terror attacks have put Europe on high alert.

This week, a teenager who said he was inspired by ISIS stabbed passengers on a German train before police shot him dead. Only eight days earlier, 84 people were killed when a man drove a large truck through a Bastille Day crowd in Nice, France.

If Donald Trump wins the election, those who will be most frantic might want to reconsider their years of complacent, tongue-clucking-and-teddy-bears "plan" for confronting Jihad.


William Horobin and Inti Landauro report for the WSJ:

The man who killed 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day appeared to be planning the attack since last year and had the help of several people, France's top antiterror prosecutor said Thursday.

Investigative magistrates on Thursday were interrogating five people suspected of providing support to 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, said Paris Prosecutor Fran├žois Molins, who laid out a timeline suggesting the attacker and his suspected accomplices had embraced Islamic extremism as early as the Charlie Hebdo attack in January of last year.

The details disclosed by Mr. Molins threaten to fuel public anger at French President Fran├žois Hollande and his ministers, who have spent days defending their handling of the terror attack.

The new evidence appears to contradict claims made by top French officials immediately after the rampage that Lahouaiej Bouhlel was radicalized in a matter of weeks, leaving security services little chance of stopping him when he plowed through throngs of revelers on Bastille Day with a 21-ton truck.

Instead, Mr. Molins suggested Lahouaiej Bouhlel may have conducted surveillance on his target a year before he acted and communicated more than a thousand times with suspected accomplices.
Accomplices who share the specific intent are just as culpable as the triggerman.  Presumably some of them will be caught.  What will France do then?   Will they do like Norway with Anders Breivik and sentence them to less than four months in prison per life taken?

Are you really sure you don't want capital punishment, mes amis?

The New CounterTerror Strategy: Kumbaya

| No Comments
I only wish the Administration's strategy to dismantle our successful sentencing system  --  the one that has helped crater crime rates for a generation  --  more closely  resembled  its "strategy" to "dismantle" Jihad.  Yesterday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained the battle plan against Islamic terror:

"Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love," Lynch said after meeting with officials in Orlando, Fla., on Tuesday -- a week after a gunman at a gay nightclub killed 49 in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

When I was at camp at about age 13, I thought it would be a good idea to try to impress a 13 year-old girl by singing "Kumbaya." This didn't work out too well, but the worst that happened was that she rolled her eyes and paid attention to another boy.  

I wonder if that's the worst that will happen when we sing "Kumbaya" to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The fecklessness of these people in understanding what we're facing cannot be captured in words.

UPDATE:  Scott Johnson is also embarrassed for Ms. Lynch, if "embarrassed" conveys the extent of it.



Obama's Ministry of Information

| 1 Comment
How many thousands of times have we been told by criminal justice "reformers" that we should rely on "data-driven" policy and "evidence-based" determinations?  And that troglodytes (like posters on this blog) instead rely on nativist emotion?

Largely, the insistence on data and evidence, which sounds unarguable in the abstract, is simply a dodge  --  a tactic of delay and evasion to make us doubt what we've been learning from one source after the next for months (for example, that the police have become cautious to the point of danger, or that the spike in murder is a nationwide problem).

Sometimes, though, the insistence on "data" simply means an insistence on scrubbed data.  Evidence adverse to the political agenda du jour (in Obama's case, whitewashing Jihad) literally gets blotted out.  Hence this story from the Minister of Information Attorney General:

The Department of Justice is scrubbing references of radical Islamic beliefs from the transcripts of calls Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen made to police during his massacre, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Sunday.

A partial transcript of the conversations between authorities and Mateen, who killed 49 and wounded 53 in the June 12 attack at a Florida gay nightclub, is set to be released on Monday. But Lynch, who appeared on numerous Sunday talk shows, said the transcripts will not include Mateen's oath of loyalty to ISIS or any other religious justification for the attack.

"What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda," Lynch told NBC. "We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]."

Hanson on Orlando

| 1 Comment
If Donald Trump seriously wants to surround himself with "the best people," by which I think he means people generally aligned with his viewpoint but who are serious thinkers and learned in their fields, he might start with Victor Davis Hanson.  Hanson has this article in the City Journal.

Once again, as in the case of the Tsarnaevs and San Bernardino murderers, the shooter and his associations were on federal authorities' radar--and again to no avail. Apparently, dozens of Americans must be massacred every so often so that the rest of us can avoid the politically incorrect charge of being "Islamophobic." At some point, intelligence authorities will have to take seriously American-born Muslims who consume ISIS propaganda and espouse radical Islamic hatred.

Still more monotonous themes: as in the case of Major Hasan (the Fort Hood jihadist), the Tsarnaev clan (Boston Marathon), and Syed Rizwan Farook (San Bernardino), there is something deeply wrong with American immigration policy and the attitude of us, the lax host, to newcomers. In too many deadly cases, a generation of Muslims goes to great lengths to reach the United States only to raise an American-born or naturalized ungracious and unappreciative generation that apparently grows to hate the bounty and freedom of America to such a degree as to blow up, shoot, and maim innocent Americans. Immigration to the U.S., and citizenship itself, should be seen, again, as a privilege, not a right--and assimilation and integration, not multicultural separatism and ethnic and religious chauvinism, should be the goal of the host. We need not single out Muslims in terms of restricting immigration, but we should take a six-month timeout on all would-be immigrants from countries in the Middle East deemed war zones--Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen--not only for our own immediate security but also to send a general message that entrance into the U.S. is a rare and prized opportunity, not simply a cheap and pro forma entitlement.

Is it Racist to Protect Ourselves?

| No Comments
The answer is certainly yes to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, President Obama and way to many liberal elites in the university, the media and politics.  In the aftermath of Brussels, Paris, Santa Barbara and dozens of other recent brutal attacks by radical Islamic terrorists on innocent Westerners, it has been suggested that national security agencies direct more of their focus on the distinctive segment of the population that has produced the terrorists.  This includes more closely monitoring Muslims entering the US, particularly from countries harboring terrorists, tracking them while they are here, and surveilling Mosques.  According to our betters, this is a gross violation of American values and will encourage more Muslims to radicalize.  Heather MacDonald discusses this dilemma in an article in the City Journal. 

A Time to Re-Visit Enhanced Interrogation

| 1 Comment
Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine steps up to ask, and answer, a question the most recent grotesque terror attacks have put before us:  Can we sanely continue the law enforcement model of interrogation when we know terrorists are planning mass murder, but we don't know where or when?

According to reports, the terrorists who carried out last week's attacks in Brussels acted sooner than originally planned because they feared that captured terrorist Salah Abdeslam would inform authorities of the attacks. Apparently, they need not have worried.

Belgian officials questioned Abdeslam only lightly, and not at all about possible new attacks. Instead, using the discredited law enforcement model, they focused on the Paris attacks of last November, presumably hoping to obtain a confession.

Back in the days of the controversy over waterboarding, there was talk about a "ticking time bomb" scenario. The question was: When we know there's time bomb ready to go off, but don't know the location, is it okay to waterboard a captured terrorist who likely has knowledge of the impending attack?

Read Paul's analysis here.  In my view, failing to extort information that can save dozens of innocent lives because we allow captured terrorists to stonewall is way, way beyond inhuman.  When you have no appetizing choices, you pick the least bad.

Oh, Never Mind

| No Comments
Devlin Barrett reports for the WSJ:

The Justice Department filed court papers Monday saying it had cracked the iPhone of a San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist, seeking to drop its legal case to force Apple Inc. to help them unlock it.

The move signals a temporary retreat from a high-stakes fight between Washington and Silicon Valley over privacy and security in the digital age.

The filing short-circuits a pending legal showdown over whether the government can force technology companies to write software to aid in criminal investigations, but it is unlikely to avert the long-term conflict between federal agents and technology executives over how secure electronic communications should be, and what firms should have to do to help the government access their customers' data.
...was to take in a ball game with Cuba's Communist dictator.  The Washington Post has the story.

I don't think there's a lot I could say about this display that would conform to the standards CJLF sets for this blog.

Part Terrorist, Part Gangster

| No Comments
Anthony Faiola and Souad Mekhennet report in the WaPo:

BRUSSELS -- The recent terrorist attacks in Paris have brought into sharper focus the rise of a new breed of jihadists, one that blurs the line between organized crime and Islamist extremism, using skills honed in lawbreaking in the service of violent radicalism.

The Islamic State is constructing an army of loyalists from Europe that includes an increasing number of street toughs and ex-cons as the nature of radicalization evolves in the era of its self-proclaimed caliphate. Rather than leave behind lives of crime, some adherents are using their illicit talents to finance recruiting rings and travel costs for foreign fighters even as their backgrounds give them potentially easier access to cash and weapons, posing a new kind of challenge to European authorities.
For too long, the attitude has been that private citizens should be passive in the face of crime, running or hiding.  "Don't be a hero" was the mentality.  But we need heroes.  It was the heroic passengers of United Flight 93 on 9/11/01 who prevented the plane from slamming into the U.S. Capitol.  It was the heroes on the French train who prevented a massacre.

In some cases, running or hiding may be the right response.  If the professionals are on the scene, it is best to leave it to them.  Other times, though, the combined efforts of multiple people, even if unarmed, can end the killing, and more companies are now including active response in their active shooter training.  Michael Rosenwald has this story in the WaPo.

E-Threat Closes 1000+ L.A. Schools

| 3 Comments
AP reports:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- All schools in the vast Los Angeles Unified School District have been ordered closed due to a threat, a spokeswoman Ellen Morgan said Tuesday.
John Hinderaker spills the beans on an Obama Administration policy that intentionally blinded the United States to information that might have prevented the San Bernardino murders:

Today on Good Morning America, John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and now a national security consultant for ABC News, dropped a bombshell: over the objections of security-minded DHS personnel, the Obama administration secretly barred DHS from looking at postings on social media by visa applicants like Tashfeen Malik:

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said. ...

Former DHS under-secretary Cohen said he and others pressed hard for just such a policy change in 2014 that would allow a review of publicly-posted social media messages as terror group followers increasingly used Twitter and Facebook to show their allegiance to a variety of jihadist groups.


The 14 people who were murdered by Jihadists in California no longer have civil liberties.  Do they count?

P.S.  The idea that there is a privacy interest in what you intentionally post on social media  --  that's  S-O-C-I-A-L  M-E-D-I-A  --  is a thousand miles beyond preposterous.

P.P.S.  You gotta love the idea of the government's "secretly" adopting a policy to protect civil liberties.


A few years ago, California voters adopted the Louisiana system of elections, the one that gave us the famous campaign slogan of "Vote for the Crook.  It's Important."  (The alternative was a Klansman.)  When we cast our ballots for U.S. Senate 11 months from now, the choice won't be quite that unpalatable, but Republicans may very well have to swallow hard and choose between two Democrats:  Attorney General Kamala Harris and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.  It seems Ms. Sanchez has raised some hackles with a Politically Incorrect statement.  Christopher Cadelago reports for the SacBee:

Sanchez, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said that between 5 and 20 percent of Muslims want to form a caliphate to target Western norms.

"They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King." "And again, I don't know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly, they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism."
Saying "between 5 and 20 percent" wasn't a good idea.  Her follow-up "I don't know how big that is" is completely correct.  Nobody knows.  Islamic extremism exists, and regardless of how large the fraction is, this is a reality that cannot be ignored.  Willingness to speak uncomfortable truths places a checkmark in Ms. Sanchez's column, in my view.

On a related issue, Rudy Giuliani has an op-ed in the WSJ on calling things by their proper names.
WaPo fact checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee had this article Thursday on President Obama's various statements after mass shootings, which are not fully consistent with each other or with the facts.  The article also has a cautionary nugget about what "experts say" and what "studies show."

Mr. Obama gets the maximum Four Pinocchios (reserved for "whoppers") for his December 1 statement in Paris, "I say this every time we've got one of these mass shootings: This just doesn't happen in other countries."  Wow.

The President's other, more nuanced statements about the relative frequency of such incidents get the milder Two Pinocchio rating ("significant omissions and/or exaggerations").  To check the facts, Ms. Lee consults experts Adam Lankford and John Lott and gets very different answers.

Astute readers might notice how Lankford and Lott both compared the United States to grouped European countries, but their conclusions are vastly different. Lott says the rate is about the same, while Lankford says the rate is five times higher in the United States. How is this possible? The researchers are looking at different sets of years and different sets of countries. (Lott looked at Europe as a whole; Lankford at the European Union.) Lott uses a broader measure of mass shootings than Lankford does. Lankford looks at the number of shooters; Lott uses fatalities and shooting incidents. This is an example of how the data and definition can be adjusted to show different findings about mass shootings, even using a per capita rate.
Lots and lots of choices have to be made in setting up a study, many seemingly benign in themselves.  If a person wants to reach a particular result, it is easy as pie to run the numbers 16 different ways, pick the way that best supports your agenda, and throw the others in the trash.

This is why the viewpoint one-sidedness of American academia and the well-funded nonprofits is so very dangerous.  The truth comes out much more clearly when there are people on both sides doing these kinds of studies, but academic conservatives are an endangered species, and those who do "come out" are targeted by neo-McCarthyists determined to achieve ideological purity.

Be very, very skeptical about what "studies show" and "experts say."  

Monthly Archives