Terrorism In Europe

Authored by Drieu Godefridi via The Gatestone Institute,

• The problem, of course, resides in the European definition of terrorism. The EU definition of terrorism, wittingly or unwittingly, confuses the issue. It needs to be revised.


• Under the definition of terrorism in American law (18 U.S. Code § 2331), no act can be qualified as terrorist if there is no terror intended.

Terrorism is booming in Europe - even though the European Union statistics say it is not. The EU"s statistics on terrorism, simply put, confuse the issue. They are a fairy-tale.

Since 9/11, in report after report, experts, ministers and public authorities have been saying the same thing: that in Europe (meaning the EU), Islamic terrorism is merely a marginal aberration. Nothing to be afraid of, and if you show too much interest in the matter you are probably on the far-right, aren"t you! Do you want to persecute the Muslims and make them the Jews of today"s Europe?

As experts always do when they want to shut down a debate, they turn to statistics, preferably European statistics. Since July 1, 1999 — the date of its inception — Europol (European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation) has regularly published an assessment of terrorism in the EU.

Europol headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. (Image source: OSeveno/Wikimedia Commons)

If you read Europol"s last ten EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports (TE-SAT), you will find, year after year, the number of "failed, foiled or successfully executed" terror attacks and the subsequent number of victims - all you supposedly need to assess the true nature of terrorism in the EU.

For the number of terror attacks in Europe during the last ten years, here is a chart based on Europol"s data:

Number of terror or terrorist attacks in the EU since 2007 (Data: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports; chart D. Godefridi)

The first surprise is that according to Europol, the trend is clearly downward: far fewer terror attacks in Europe in 2016 than ten years ago!

Does that seem a bit counter-intuitive? But, hey, those are the official statistics.

Then there are the number of fatalities:

People killed by terror attacks in the EU since 2007 (Data: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports; chart D. Godefridi)

This second chart looks much more in line with the feelings of the common man, don"t you think? Approximately 150 dead in the EU from terror attacks in 2015 and 2016, compared to zero in 2007, or 4 in 2014. (That is what is so endearing about statistics: you can manipulate many things, such as the psychological and emotional damage or the consequences of a "foiled attack" -- but not the number of dead bodies).

If you superimpose the two preceding charts, there is, obviously, zero correlation between the number of attacks and the number of dead. Even if there are fewer attacks, more people are being killed. In 2007, there were 583 attacks but zero people killed. In 2016, there were 142 attacks with 142 killed.

Terror attacks and people killed by terror attacks in the EU since 2007 (Data: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports; chart D. Godefridi)

Where is the wolf? The problem resides in the European definition of terrorism. Look at the TE-SAT report of 2009:

"What the term "terrorist offences" includes is indicated in Article 1 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA), which all member states have implemented in their national legislation. This Framework Decision specifies that terrorist offences are intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation when —

• committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or


• unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or


• seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation".

On this legal basis, Europol distinguishes between different categories of terror attacks; jihadist terrorism; ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism; left-wing and anarchist terrorism; right-wing terrorism; and finally, "single issue terrorism" (such as animal rights).

There is nothing wrong with these definitions except that one thing has gotten lost: terror. We have known, ever since ancient Rome"s system of law, the importance of accurate definitions; and before that, in ancient Greece, of correct hypotheses. If an attack is not intended to terrorize the public, presumably it should not qualify either as terrorism or as a terrorist attack.

Here is the EU magic: the second part of EU definition — "unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act" — whatever act — authorizes one to qualify as "terrorism" countless deeds that are certainly criminal but do not actually terrorize anyone.

That is why for years, the number of Islamic terror attacks has looked so ridiculously small and the other categories so impressively large. In 2007, of the 583 reported attacks, 517 were claimed or attributed to separatist groups in Spain and France. In 2012, Europol reported:

"In 2011, ETA [Basque separatists] committed one terrorist attack in France (Valliere, Creuse). Two ETA members opened fire against the Gendarmerie while trying to escape from a police checkpoint."

Criminal, no doubt! But where is terrorism? Furthermore:

"In France, 62 completed attacks and 13 attempted attacks were reported. All these attacks were carried out by Corsican terrorist groups. Their main target, however, remains the tourism sector. Holiday homes and restaurants are often targeted."

Corsican nationalists want more autonomy for their island. These "nationalists," however, never kill anyone, and they almost never hurt anyone except themselves; and when they burn a paillote (a small restaurant in the form of a hut on the beach) owned by some Frenchman from the continent, you never know if it is to preserve the beauty of Corsican nature, to take over his business, or because the kitchen was dirty. To qualify all of those acts indiscriminately as terrorism, and to classify them in the same category as the Islamist in Marseille who shouted "Allahu akbar" before slitting the throat of a girl and eviscerating her cousin, is morally repugnant. That atrocity in Marseille received worldwide press coverage and was indeed a terror attack in the purest sense of the word.

In short, the EU definition of terrorism, wittingly or unwittingly, confuses the issue. It needs to be revised. One can imagine a new category, such as "political violence," to designate acts that are neither intended to terrorize the public nor that actually do so, but are nonetheless political and violent by nature, such as public political riots, so common, in France. Or the definition of terrorism in American law (18 U.S. Code § 2331), under which no act can be qualified as terrorist if there is no terror intended.¹

As for actual terrorism in the EU, it is in fact a simple matter. Here are the facts:

1. In 2015: Of the 151 killed by terror attacks in Europe, 150 were killed by Islamic terrorism (99%, according to TE-SAT 2016);


2. In 2016: Of the 142 fatalities of terror attacks in Europe, 135 were caused by Islamic terrorism (95%, according to TE-SAT 2017);


3. From 2007-2014: the average number of dead from terror attacks in Europe was 6.1 each year (2, 4, 7, 7, 1, 17, 7, 4; source: TE-SAT 2008-2015);


4. The increase in the number of dead from terror attacks in 2015-2016 compared to the period 2007-2014 is a staggering 2,291%.

The trend appears the same in 2017. The rest is EU sophistry.

Ron Paul Reminds Americans the US Military is Occupying 53 of 54 African Nations

Ron Paul noted that not only is the United States military in Niger, but U.S. troops are stationed in 53 out of the 54 nations in Africa.

The Islamic Future Of Europe

Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,

• European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories. They see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam.


• Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement whose actions are totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

The terrorist attack in Barcelona received the same reaction as all the large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe: tears, prayers, flowers, candles, teddy bears, and protestations that "Islam means peace ". When people gathered to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Muslims organized a demonstration to defend Islam; they claimed that Muslims living in Spain are the "main victims" of terrorism. The president of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Societies, Mounir Benjelloun El Andaloussi, spoke of a "conspiracy against Islam" and said that terrorists were "instruments" of Islamophobic hatred. The mayor of Barcelona, ?? Ada Colau, cried in front of the cameras and said that her city would remain an "open city" for all immigrants. The governor of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, used almost the same language. Spain"s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, a conservative, was the only one who dared to call jihadist terrorism by its name. Almost all European journalists said Rajoy"s words were too harsh.

After the attack in Barcelona, Spain, when people gathered at the site to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Pictured: "Anti-fascists" beat a man who they claimed is a "right-wing sympathizer" at Las Ramblas, Barcelona, on August 18, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Mainstream European newspapers describing the horror once again sought explanations to what they kept calling "inexplicable". The leading Spanish daily newspaper, El Pais, wrote in an editorial that "radicalization" is the bitter fruit of the "exclusion" of certain "communities," and added that the answer was more "social justice". In France, Le Monde suggested that terrorists want to "incite hatred", and stressed that Europeans must avoid "prejudice". In the UK, The Telegraph explained that "killers attack the West because the West is the West; not because of what it does" -- but it spoke of "killers", not "terrorists" or "Islamists".

Anti-terrorism specialists, interviewed on television, said that the attacks, carried out across the continent at an ever-faster pace, will become deadlier. They noted that the original plan of the Barcelona jihadists had been to destroy the Sagrada Família Cathedral and kill thousands of people. The specialists parroted that Europeans will just have to learn to live with the threat of widespread carnage. They did not offer any solutions. Once again, many said that terrorists are not really Muslims -- and that the attacks "had nothing to do with Islam".

Many leaders of Western European countries treat Islamic terrorism as a fact of life that Europeans must get used to -- as some kind of aberration unrelated to Islam. They often avoid speaking of "terrorism" at all. After the attack in Barcelona,?? German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a brief reproach about a "revolting" event. She expressed "solidarity" with the Spanish people, and then moved on. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted a message of condolence and spoke of a "tragic attack."

Throughout Europe, expressions of anger are conscientiously marginalized. Calls for mobilization, or any serious change in immigration policy, come only from politicians scornfully described as "populist."

Even the slightest criticism of Islam immediately arouses almost unanimous indignation. In Western Europe, books on Islam that are widely available are written by people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Tariq Ramadan. Books that are "politically incorrect" also exist, but are sold under the counter as if they are contraband. Islamic bookstores sell brochures calling for violence without even hiding what they do. Dozens of imams, similar to Abdelbaki Es Satty, the suspected mastermind of the attack in Barcelona, continue to preach with impunity; if they are arrested, they are quickly released.

Submission reigns. The discourse everywhere is that despite increasing threats, Europeans must live their lives as normally as possible. But Europeans see what threats exist. They see that life is not even slightly normal. They see policemen and soldiers in the streets, proliferating security checks, strict controls at the entrance of theaters and shops. They see insecurity everywhere. They are told just to ignore the source of the threats, but they know the source. They claim they are not afraid. Thousands in Barcelona shouted, "No tinc por" ("We are not afraid"). In fact, they are scared to death.

Polls show that Europeans are pessimistic, and think the future will be bleak. Polls also show that Europeans no longer have confidence in those who govern them, but feel they are left with no choice.

This shift in their lives has occurred in such a short time, less than half a century. Before then, in Western Europe, only a few thousand Muslims were present -- mostly immigrant workers from former European colonies. They were supposed to be in Europe temporarily, so were never asked to integrate.

They soon numbered hundreds of thousands, then millions. Their presence turned permanent. Many became citizens. Asking them to integrate grew unthinkable: most seemed to consider themselves Muslim first.

European leaders gave up defending their own civilization. They slipped into saying that all cultures should be viewed the same way. They appear to have given up.

School curricula were altered. Children were taught that Europe and the West had plundered the Muslim world -- not that the Muslims had, in fact, invaded and conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, most of Eastern Europe, Greece, Northern Cyprus, and Spain. Children were taught that Islamic civilization had been splendid and opulent before colonization supposedly came to ravage it.

Welfare states, established in the post-war period, began to create a large underclass of people permanently trapped in dependency, just when the number of Muslims in Europe redoubled.

Social-housing neighborhoods suddenly were Muslim neighborhoods. The rise in mass unemployment -- mainly affecting less qualified workers -- transformed Muslim neighborhoods into mass-unemployment neighborhoods.

Community organizers came to tell unemployed Muslims that after purportedly looting their countries of origin, Europeans had used Muslim workers to rebuild Europe and were now treating them as useless utensils.

Crime took root. Muslim neighborhoods became high-crime neighborhoods.

Extremist Muslim preachers arrived; they reinforced a hatred of Europe. They said that Muslims must remember who they are; that Islam must take its revenge. They explained to young, imprisoned Muslim criminals that violence could be used for a noble cause: jihad.

Police were ordered not to intervene lest they aggravate the tension. High-crime areas became no-go zones, breeding grounds for the recruitment of Islamic terrorists.

European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories.

Riots took place; leaders made even more concessions. They passed laws restricting freedom of speech.

When Islamic terrorism first hit Europe, its leaders did not know what to do. They still do not know what to do. They are prisoners of a situation they created and cannot control anymore. They appear to feel helpless.

They cannot incriminate Islam: the laws they passed make it illegal to do that. In most European countries, even questioning Islam is branded as "Islamophobia". It leads to heavy fines, if not trials or prison time (as with Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Geert Wilders or George Bensoussan). They cannot re-establish law and order in no-go zones: that would require the intervention of the army and a shift towards martial law. They cannot adopt the solutions proposed by parties they have pushed into opposition at the margins of European political life.

They cannot even close their borders, abolished in 1995 with the Schengen agreement. Re-establishing border controls would be costly and take time.

Europe"s leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them. Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create "deradicalization" programs that do not work: the "radicals," it seems, do not want to be "deradicalized."

Europe"s leaders try to define "radicalization" as a symptom of "mental illness"; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. Then, they talk about creating a "European Islam", totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth. They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain "open" to immigrants. Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.

European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist. They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.

But there is a lot they can do; they just do not want to -- it might cost them Muslim votes.

Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, you will have war." The same is true today.

Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement that is totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

Barcelona"s Sagrada Família Cathedral was spared only thanks to the clumsiness of a terrorist who did not know how to handle explosives. Other places may not be so fortunate.

The death of Europe will almost certainly be violent and painful: no one seems willing to stop it. Voters still could, but they will have to do it now, fast, before it is too late.

Is A Tolerant Culture Being Replaced By An Intolerant One?

Authored by Saher Fares via The Gatestone Institute,

• One need not go back centuries to the Muslim conquest of the Christian late classical world -- the medieval Barbary corsair raids, the Ottoman yoke in Central and Eastern Europe or the slave markets of Kaffa in Tatar Muslim Crimea -- to understand that this violence clearly predates the European colonial era, the creation of the modern state of Israel, or the issue of climate change.


• Countries such as China, Nigeria or Kenya that are not Western, not "imperialist", not whatever the excuses that Islamists make, are still spectacularly attacked by similar stabbings. Month on month, there seems almost nowhere that Islamic terror did not strike.


• Volumes of revered Islamic texts establish in great detail the grounds of violence and oppression of non-believers and those deemed heretical. These supposed grounds -- made alive daily in madrassas and mosques across the world before being acted upon by religiously-trained terrorists -- are childishly dismissed by Western liberals as immaterial.


• The first step towards a solution is to question the received knowledge tirelessly dished out by media pundits in the West. What is lacking is simply seeing a huge body of evidence of theological justification for Islamist terror.

How thin can excuses wear every time an atrocity is committed in the name of Islam?

When 13 people were killed and scores more injured this week in a vehicle-ramming attack in Barcelona, Spain, and stabbing men shouting "This is for Allah!" on London Bridge and in Borough Market in June, what the victims least cared about was the Western elite pontificating that the latest atrocity "had nothing to do with Islam".

British Prime Minister Theresa May said, "It is time to say enough is enough" and promised a review of her country"s counter-terrorism strategy.

In the absence, however, of an honest and tempered look at the root causes of this terrorism, sacred or not, and a painful soul-searching by Muslims themselves of the grounds in their religion that give rise to such violence, it will never be "enough".

On June 4, British PM Theresa May said, "It is time to say enough is enough" and promised a review of her country"s counter-terrorism strategy. In the absence, however, of an honest look at the root causes of this terrorism, and a painful soul-searching by Muslims of the grounds in their religion that give rise to such violence, it will never be "enough". (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

One need not go back centuries to the Muslim conquest of the Christian late classical world -- the medieval Barbary corsair raids, the Ottoman yoke in Central and Eastern Europe or the slave markets of Kaffa in Tatar Muslim Crimea -- to understand that this violence clearly predates the European colonial era, the creation of the modern state of Israel, or the issue of climate change.

Only a fortnight ago, 29 Christian Copts were killed for refusing to say, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet" while on a trip to an Egyptian monastery on May 26. Separately, an unconfirmed number of Christians were killed and taken hostage by a mix of Saudi, Pakistani, Chechen, Moroccan and local jihadists in the southern Philippines during the past few weeks. In addition, 90 people were killed in a bombing in Kabul on May 31, and 26 people were killed at an ice cream parlor in Baghdad during Ramadan. None of these massacres had anything to do with "Bush"s war" in Iraq or U.S. President Donald J. Trump"s proposed "Muslim ban".

Countries such as China, Nigeria or Kenya that are not Western, not "imperialist", not whatever the excuses that Islamists make, are still spectacularly attacked by similar stabbings. Month on month, there seems almost nowhere Islamic terror did not strike. In January 2014, there the kidnapping and forced conversion of Christian Chibok girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. In March 2014, there were stabbings at China"s Kunming Railway Station in by eight terrorists of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement -- male and female attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers. In May 2014, there was the shooting at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. In June 2014, there was the murder of 48 people in Mpeketoni in Kenya, and the list goes on for just the first half of 2014 alone.

The slaughter at London"s Parliament Square; the Manchester Arena; the St. Petersburg Metro; Paris"s Bataclan Theater and sports stadium; the three bombings targeting travelers in Brussels; last Christmas"s truck-ramming attack on a packed festival market in Berlin, to name but a few of the further incidents -- all really had nothing to do with avenging the Congolese from the onerous legacy of King Leopold.

Rather, volumes of revered Islamic texts establish in great detail the grounds of violence and oppression of non-believers and those deemed heretical. These supposed grounds -- made alive daily in madrassas and mosques across the world before being acted upon by religiously trained terrorists -- are childishly dismissed by Western liberals as immaterial.

Meanwhile, men, women and children are being offered as human sacrifices on the altar of political cynicism. Divine justice will doubtlessly judge not only the murderers and a creed that often seems bloodthirsty, but also those who insist, against all evidence, that this creed has nothing to do with those deaths.

The first step towards a solution is to question the received knowledge tirelessly dished out by media pundits in the West, and confirmed by too many supposed Muslim "moderates" both at home and abroad. What is lacking is simply seeing a huge body of evidence of theological justification for Islamist terror.

Have the statements by politicians in the 1990s (for example, at the time of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman"s plot against the World Trade Center) changed from those uttered in the wake of 9/11, or again from those repeated after the San Bernardino attack in 2015? Do politicians give their "Islam is a religion of peace" platitudes out of political expediency or even the slightest knowledge of the ideology of Islam? Do they know actually know more about Islam than many of Islam"s learned ulema (scholars), including Ibn Taymiyyah, or the authentic hadith (actions and sayings of Muhammad)? One says:

"Allah"s Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror."" (Sahih Al-Bukhari 122)

How does one read verses in the Quran such as:

"I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. This is because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment." (8:12-13)?

When it is said that Islam has nothing to do with verses such as these, is that meant to appease Muslims, comfort the victims of Islamic terror or support the comfort of the non-Muslim community? If it is the first, well, as history teaches, appeasement simply does not work. Besides, it would be an offensive to presume that Muslims, all Muslims, are to be held responsible for a creed that, in their own understanding of it, greatly varies from one individual to another. If the denial is intended to comfort victims, it does not. And as for the comfort of the non-Muslim community, what is being served up has to be based on what is visibly true. Should such arguments not first be pitched to try to convince those who are willing to kill and be killed in the name of Islam, rather than to those out to have a good time on a Saturday evening?

Will the time come when reformers in the Islamic world will have louder voices in scrutinizing Islam -- despite the obvious dangers to their lives -- than Western elites, who are merely afraid of being falsely accused of being "Islamophobes"? Why should it be "Islamophobic" to want to defend yourself?

For nearly two years, a prime-time TV program by a young Egyptian reformist, Islam el-Beheiry, has called for an overhaul of the millennium-old compilation of hadiths. He argues that much of it is incompatible with modernity and the best understanding of divinity and prophethood:

"Such tradition has very little good amid a multitude of evil, least of which is the insistence by all the Four Schools of Sunni Islam that Christians can be killed with impunity. A Muslim life is "superior" to that of a non-Muslim. Such is the Ijmaa" (jurisprudence consensus)."

Beheiry was sentenced in May 2015 to five years in prison with hard labor for "defamation of religion" -- thanks to Egypt"s blasphemy law. The sentence was reduced in December 2015 to one year. After serving most of his sentence, he was released on a presidential pardon.

Still, this Ramadan 2017, Beheiry was back again on the screen with a program he calls "The Map", in which he is trying to build a scientific way of judging what he thinks is divine and what is not in the mass of Islamic literature.

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, an army general who in 2014 came to power following vast street protests against the short-lived rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, said it was no longer feasible that the Muslim World would set itself "in enmity against the whole world".

Now, in Europe, some rightly ask: If one in a thousand is a bad apple, why should we judge all the apples. One also needs to ask: If one in a thousand apple blows up in my yard, how many more violent incidents will Europe get after bringing in a cartload of millions more? Or, what if the problem is not really with the fruit, but with the tree itself?

Why is a desire to preserve one"s own culture deemed racist? I do not believe that I am better because I am or am not a Muslim. Is it "xenophobic" to ask such questions when the violence keeps edging closer and closer to home? Why should it be "Islamophobic" to want to defend yourself?

I do not fear Muslims, but I fear that a tolerant culture is being replaced by an intolerant, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and supremacist one -- espoused, even semi-consciously, by much of the Islamic world today. It is a world that is being assured by its scholars that such intolerant, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and supremacist manifestations are, in all ages, in the best spirit of Islam.

Is it "Islamophobic" to be angry at such atrocities committed every day, or to be angry at politicians who lie about what Islam is and is not, and merely call their challengers names while failing to do anything to stop the atrocities?

Should European courts and parliaments criminalize free speech that criticizes this understanding of Islam among the bulk of Islamic jurists, when those jurists stand at the head of an assembly-line of suicide bombers targeting Western nationals?

Should those who ask questions about Islamic terror be ostracized by the mainstream media and academia, while those institutions themselves give no answers to the jihadist problem of "holy hate" in our midst?

I do not wish the world to turn against Muslims. I only wish the sages would stop and think if all this really has "nothing to do with Islam." Can we not say, "stop justifying murderers in the name of your religion"?

Can we not simply say that such creeds will not be allowed here in the West, will not be whitewashed, glossed over, or explained away by Westerners through a mixture of cultural cringe and a misguided sense of guilt? Can we not reject jihad, accept apostasy, and be able freely to ask questions in our public spaces, on our television shows, in our schools and on our streets?

How The Elites Are Divorcing From Reality: The Economist's "What If"

Via GEFIRA,

The Western globalist elites have not digested Trump’s victory or Brexit yet. They are having a hard time dealing with their ideological failures, and when the reality dares not to comply with their day dreaming, they go online and create a parallel world, where their “expert” predictions always turn right and their failures cannot be questioned.  

The Economist‘s portal named “what if”, a neo-liberal, wishful thinking echo chamber, is the point in case.

Its latest piece attributes magical powers to the new hero of the elites, Emmanuel Macron, who soundly defeated “evil” Marine Le Pen in May. For The Economist, Macron is nothing short of Jesus as he was correspondingly depicted on the monthly’s cover walking on water:

The hypothetical scenario of Macron’s success is based on magical reforms that will somehow create enormous numbers of jobs after an initial friction and fix the out-of-control state budget. The text provides no answer how exactly all this is going to be done. The happy predictions do not stop there. Macron’s miracle, would turn France into another Silicon Valley, a paradise for start-ups. Does it not make us think back to the internet bubble of the 90s? After “making France great again” and defeating Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, Marine’s niece (who for the record has already retired from politics, but don’t tell The Economist, it’d break their narrative, they need an evil antagonist), Macron’s magic would next make Europe great again. Academic papers on the “French Renaissance” are beginning to appear, says the article’s author, an intellectual liberal himself and Macron’s flunky. He speaks of “EU-funded military operations in the Sahel”, because clearly that’s what Europe needs most. Why, destabilizing surrounding countries has worked very well so far, hasn’t it? Islamic terrorism isn’t even touched in the article, so we gather it will magically disappear as will the problems of the banlieu which do not deserve much mention either. Here, too, no solution is offered, just pure magic.

Another article,”If borders were open“, tackles immigration.According to the article, the world would suddenly become richer by 78$ trillion because “Mexicans in the US could make 150% more, Nigerians 1000% more”. Never mind the fact that basic economic logic says the infinite increase in labour supply sends wages crashing down to zero. It also claims that “a Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram” because, clearly, mass migration to the West so far has not resulted in events related to Islamic terrorism nor separated communities. All our concerns about low wages and terrorism are are dismissed as “little besides conjecture and [have] anecdotal evidence to support it”. Reality is anecdotal evidence. The entire article is a massive exercise in intellectual dishonesty, ignoring or downplaying contrary evidence while highlighting potential and rather illusory benefits. Although it covers briefly the possibility that an ethnic group of a radically different culture could numerically overwhelm that of the host country and abolish democracy, no conclusion is drawn. And yet a “what if” scenario is important because a failure in creating a brave new world might result in an ethnic conflict the likes of which we are seeing in Syria now. But that’s not a politically correct answer and thus must be ignored. What matters is the alleged 78$ trillion, which for the record would never happen if ethnic conflicts and societal collapses erupted. The first line of the article says: “the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen” and that answers the pertinent question, who would get those 78$ trillion? The elites, and next they will bribe academics and intellectuals to post articles like that one. Indeed The Economist is owned by the world’s most elitist family, the Rothschilds. Very much like their puppet, Macron, who by the way worked for a Rothschild bank. Is this love a coincidence?

We surveyed The Economist‘s past articles. None of them actually predicted today’s world even remotely accurately. For 2015 there was a Russia break-up potential scenario a fantasy that resembles those spun by the late ideologist Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Then there’s “The first 100 days” of President Hillary Clinton.

The prediction of Trump’s victory is the only accurate thing in the article. The conclusions drawn are all false. The subtitle hints that Trump’s inexperience would cause “real-world crises”. Once again, clearly, Hillary Clinton’s “we came, we saw, he died” about Libya did not cause a civil war, a collapsed society and an immigration crisis in the Central Mediterranean, very much like Obama and Hollande’s “Assad must go” approach towards Syria did. To say something like this would be dismissed as “anecdotal evidence”. There’s a claim that his first international visit would be to Russia; it turned out it was to Poland.

Hillary was supposedly toppled by “Russian hackers”, which only confirms that the fantasy was always present in the minds of her supporters. Too bad. The narrative has now shifted to “Russian collusion”. Russia would also be “shooting Estonian helicopters” because Russians are evil. The Russophobic narrative is The Economist‘s recurring leitmotif.

The other claims include Mexico, which would be now a “humanitarian” superpower because it won’t deport “unaccompanied minors”, also known as illegal immigrants to Central American countries, thus teaching Trump a lesson in morality. Oh no, wait, Mexico is actually considering building a wall along the border with Guatemala. What else did they predict?

Trump won’t pass his “Muslim ban”; the travel ban has actually been passed. There will be a trade war with China; there is none as yet. Deportations of illegal immigrants won’t happen; arrests are actually up 40%.

In short, none of The Economist‘s predictions have come true. It must be Russia’s fault or anecdotal evidence.

Liberal intellectuals are too busy living in a parallel world to notice their miscalculations. Are they then worth listening to?

Polish Minister Rages At Spanish Attacks: Europeans Must "Wake Up" To This "Clash Of Civilizations"

Europe must "wake up," urges Poland initerior minister Mariusz Blaszczak, telling state TV that "we are dealing with a clash of civilazations," where Muslim enclaves form “support bases” for terrorists.

The official, a member of the ruling rightwing Law and Justice Party (PiS), said he asked his country’s security services what they were doing to prevent similar incidents and noted that Poland is safe because “we do not have Muslim communities which are enclaves, which are a natural support base for Islamic terrorists.”

A “possibility” to prevent terrorism is closing in Europe, according to the minister. As RT reports, Blaszczak also lashed out at the refugee resettling scheme in the EU, claiming it"s “encouraging millions of people to come to Europe,” and that would effectively have tragic consequences.

The blunt outburst comes a day after the deadly attack on a tourist area in Barcelona which left 13 people dead and more than 100 others injured.

The politician voiced his anti-immigration stance earlier this year when he suggested that Muslim settlements in Western Europe started from small numbers with Brussels now trying to shift responsibility.

Warsaw has been vehemently opposed to resettling migrants under a scheme advocated by Brussels and approved by the majority of European countries.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the Law and Justice leader, accused migrants in October 2015 of bringing cholera and dysentery as well as “all sorts of parasites and protozoa, which… while not dangerous in the organisms of these people, could be dangerous here.”

The xenophobic remarks caused controversy inside the government. Marek Sawicki, agriculture minister with the Polish People’s Party, the junior member of the ruling coalition, said this was “a reference to old, dangerous and dishonest sentiments from the time of the [Second World] war,”according to Politico.

Poland, along with Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Slovakia have firmly rejected the so-called refugee quotas, deepening East-West cracks in the 28-member bloc.

With every new terrorist attack carried out by non-EU nationals, the European public and politicians are showing growing discontent and unease.

Brussels has threatened legal action against the dissenting countries, filing a formal “infringement procedure” in June which could result in financial penalties imposed by the European Court of Justice.

11 More Clues Exposing the Israeli-Islamic Terrorism Connection

The Israeli-Islamic terrorism connection can’t be hidden any more. This article contains 11 clues (out of many). Above: Jabat al-Nusra terrorists wounded in Syria taken to Israeli hospitals. Image credit: SyrianFreePress.wordpress.com.

The Israeli-Islamic Terrorism connection has become as clear as day. There are so many clues it’s impossible for the Anglo-American-Zionist axis to hide it any more. This article offers further proof of the Israeli-Islamic terrorism link, beyond what I have already exposed in previous articles such as Top 10 Indications or Proofs ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation. There is really no doubt that Israel is following the logic that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Since its arch-enemy Iran is helping Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, Israel is turning to the enemies of the Syrian Government to collaborate and conspire with them in the overthrow of Assad. These enemies are the “Syrian rebels”, or Salafist, Wahhabi and Takfiri terrorists (see this article for a breakdown of what all these terms mean, and how mainstream Sunni Muslims are distancing themselves from these violent groups). Whether it’s ISIS, Al Qaeda, Fatah Al Sham, Jahbat Al Sham, Al Nusra Front, Syrian rebels in general or any other Takfiri terrorist group, Israel has been actively pursuing relationships with all them to undermine the Iran-Syria alliance.

The following 11 clues are arranged in chronological order, from the most recent (#1) to the oldest (#11), however all the following articles and reports have been written within the last 2 years.

Clues Exposing the Israeli-Islamic Terrorism Connection

1. Israel is building a new hospital for Islamic takfiri terrorists: A recent PressTV report from July 19th 2017 states that Israel is planning on building a new field hospital to help wounded soldiers. Do you think Israel is just doing this out of their love for humanity?

“Israel’s military says the Tel Aviv regime plans to build a new field hospital in Syria … Lieutenant Colonel Tomer Koler told reporters in a phone conference on Wednesday that the hospital would be located on the Syrian side of the fence but on the Israeli side of the demarcation line in the Golan Heights, which is Syrian territory occupied by Israel … He noted that Israel had delivered what he called “humanitarian aid” into Syria, including hundreds of tons of food and clothing, as well as fuel and equipment such as generators.”

“Humanitarian aid”? Smells like another Orwellian euphemism, similar to humanitarian intervention. Try “takfiri terrorist support” and you’ll be closer to the mark.

2. Israel takes Fatah Al Sham / Al Nusra Front terrorists to Israeli hospitals: According to a June 25th 2017 article from the AhlulBayt News Agency (an Iranian source), Israel is continuing to accept Syrian terrorists who have been wounded in battle with the SAA (the Syrian Arab Army which is the official, legitimate army of the Syrian Government) in Quneitra province. The articles states:

“The sources reported that a number of injured members of Al-Nusra Front (also known as Fatah al-Sham Front or the Levant Liberation Board) have been transferred to the Israeli hospitals via al-Hamidiyeh region in Quneitra countryside. The army troops repelled Al-Nusra Front’s offensives in the Southwestern province of Quneitra, leaving tens of terrorists dead and many more wounded. Later, the Israeli aircraft attacked the Syrian government forces’ tanks and artillery positions South-West of the war-hit country. This is not the first time that Al-Nusra terrorists have been transferred to Israeli hospital after sustaining injuries in clashes with the army soldiers. In September and November 2016, tens of wounded fighters of Fatah al-Sham (formerly know as the Al-Nusra) Front were transferred from Quneitra battlefields to Israeli hospitals in the occupied Golan Heights, as several Israeli ambulances entered Syria’s Southern province of Quneitra and transferred those terrorists injured in clashes with Syrian Army troops to their hospitals in the occupied part of the Golan Heights.”

3. Israel is coordinating attacks inside the Golan Heights with Al Nusra: Further evidence of the Israeli-ISIS connection can be found in this PressTV article of June 25th 2017, which reports a Syrian military source. Israel claims plausible deniability by saying their attacks on Syria are in retaliation for attacks that come out of Syria against Israel (though no necessarily from the SAA). The source states:

“Israel’s airstrikes on the Golan Heights on Saturday coincided with a push by Nusra Front terrorists against army (i.e. SAA) positions … Israel regularly hits positions held by the Syrian army in the Golan Heights, describing the attacks as retaliatory. Syria says the raids aim to help Takfiri militants fighting against government forces.”

Israeli-Islamic terrorism is right in line with the Mossad’s motto.

4. Israel is making frequent contact with Syrian rebels and terrorists: This PressTV article from June 21st 2017 highlighted a quote from the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 2 March to 16 May 2017 dated June 8th 2017. PressTV writes that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that:

“… the growing interactions between the two sides could lead to escalation and cause harm to members of the UN Disengagement Observer Force deployed to the Golan Heights. UN observers listed 16 meetings between the Israel forces and the Syria militants in the border area, including on Mount Hermon, in proximity to UN outposts in Syria’s Quneitra Province and the Golan Heights, from March 2 to May 16.”

It should of course be noted that the entire Golan Heights region was annexed by Israel during its 6-Day War of 1967. It has been illegally occupying that region ever since, for over 50 years now. Rather than trying to find a way to give some territory back to Syria, Israel is pushing forward to create a buffer zone to further entrench themselves in the stolen land.

Israeli-Islamic terrorism: Zionist Jihadists. Image credit: SyrianFreePress.wordpress.com

5. Israel communicates with and funds Islamic Terrorists to maintain its buffer zone in the “stolen Golan”: Israel stole the Golan Heights region from Syria during the 6-Day War of 1967, and has up to this point refused to give back all the territory it illegally annexed. This Russia insider article from June 19th, 2017, highlights how Israel is attempting to create a new buffer zone around Quneitra in Syria so that it can retain control of the Golan Heights forever.

6. Wall Street Journal reports that Israel has been secretly helping the Syrian rebels: The original Wall Street Journal article on June 18th 2017claimed they had interviewed around half a dozen Syrian fighters to reach this conclusion:

“Israel has been regularly supplying Syrian rebels near its border with cash as well as food, fuel and medical supplies for years, a secret engagement in the enemy country’s civil war aimed at carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces.

The Israel army is in regular communication with rebel groups and its assistance includes undisclosed payments to commanders that help pay salaries of fighters and buy ammunition and weapons, according to interviews with about half a dozen Syrian fighters.”

The rest of the article is hidden behind a paywall. Subsequently, several other articles summarizing this have sprung up, such as this one which also states:

“The commander identified by the nom de guerre Abu Suhayb who leads the terrorist group told the Journal that he receives about $5,000 a month from Israel.”

Rita Katz of SITE further cements the Israeli-Islamic terrorism link. Image credit: HelpFreeTheEarth.com

7. ISIS videos are distributed to the world via SITE, an Israeli Intelligence Front: I have exposed previously on the The Freedom Articles how the organization SITE (Search International Terrorist Entities) led by Rita Katz is a Mossad or Israeli intelligence front. Isn’t it strange and very convenient how almost all (if not all) of ISIS’ videos (beheadings, killings, etc.) come via SITE? In this article from May 10th, 2017, Christopher Bollyn exposes SITE and people connected to it, such as Aaron Zelin – a Jewish Zionist from Illinois who works with Zionist think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who runs Jihadology.net.

8. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quoted as saying that Israel will keep taking in Syrians to its hospitals: We also have an April 9th 2017 article from the Times of Israel that quotes Netanyahu as admitting that Israel has helping been helping wounded Syrian civilians, and will continue to do so:

“Netanyahu [said] “… Israel is treating injured civilians from Syria as part of the humanitarian effort. We will continue to do so.””

9. An Israeli Knesset (Congress/Parliament) member accused Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman of working with Jabhat Fateh al-Sham / Nusra: A September 12th 2016 article Israeli Lawmaker Accuses Israel of Aiding Syrian Rebel Group Formerly Known as Nusra Front from the Jewish Israeli media outlet Haaretz gave voice to the accusations of an Israeli Knesset member named Akram Hasoon. The article stated:

“In a status posted on his Facebook page on Sunday, Knesset Member Akram Hasoon (Kulanu) claimed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham is bombing the Druze village of Khadr with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s support and protection. 

Hasoon said that since the weekend, the quiet village of Khadr near the Syrian border has been subject to persistent bombardments by Jabhat Fateh al-Sham militants. “We have gotten information from all fronts and from people who are responsible within the village that the Nusra Front is operating with unprecedented support from Israel, because the organization’s fighters are advancing in those places where the Israel Defense Forces had previously bombed Syrian positions and the organization is holding those positions, in addition to the logistical and medical assistance it’s getting from Israel.”

Citing eyewitnesses, Hasoon said that the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham fighters have advanced technological equipment that gives them an advantage over Assad’s forces. “To date dozens have fallen and the fighting continues, all with Israeli support,” he wrote.”

Israeli-Islamic terrorism: Herzi Halevi (above) suggests that Israel directly support ISIS.

10. Israeli Intelligence Head Admits Israel Prefers ISIS: This Antiwar.com article from June 21st, 2016 quoted a high-ranking Israeli military officer, Major General Herzi Halevy, at the Herzliya Conference. Halevy is a major general in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and the current chief of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate. According to the article, which used Hebrew-language NRG site as its source, Halevy openly declared that Israel “prefers ISIS” to the Syrian Government and that Israel does not want to see ISIS defeated in the war. The article stated:

“Halevy went on to express concern that the defeat of ISIS might mean the ‘superpowers’ leaving Syria, saying this would put Israel ‘in a hard position’ after being so opposed to the survival of the Syrian government. He then said Israel will do ‘all we can so as to not find ourselves in such a situation,’ suggesting that the Israeli military is looking at direct support for ISIS as a matter of policy, and not just rhetoric.”

11. Israel was the main buyer of stolen ISIS oil in 2015: This well-researched article from November 30th, 2015 published by the Qatari-owned new outlet al-Araby al-Jadeed concluded that Israel was the biggest buyer of stolen ISIS oil.

Other Nations Funding ISIS and Islamic Terrorism

Islamic terrorism and creations like ISIS are, of course, not only supported by Israel. There is a mountain of evidence revealing the role of the US, UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and others. In this video posted in 2015 former VP Joe Biden openly admits that ISIS terrorists are being funded by the allies of the US (and therefore of Israel). He specifically names Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE.  In November 2015, Russia exposed how ISIS truckswere carrying oil out of Syria to fund their operations, and presented evidence “that provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them.” In June 2017 Turkish politician Enis Berberoglu was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the crime of leaking secret documents to a newspaper showing the Turkey’s MIT (National Intelligence Organization) shipped weapons to foreign-backed Takfiri terrorists in Syria. US support of ISIS is well known, as is the fact that Britain helped to create ISIS along with America.

The Israeli-Islamic Terrorism Connection: The Game is Up

The evidence of the Israeli-Islamic terrorism link is overwhelming. We know that radical Islamic terrorism is really Zio-Islamic terrorism. Both radicalized individuals and key Zionist players (both using religion as an excuse to steal and kill) are involved. It’s a slick game but the cat is out of the bag.

Sources:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5doeBEyjVDg

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/top-10-proofs-isis-us-israeli-creation/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/sunnis-denounce-salafist-takfiri-terror/

*http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/07/19/529028/Israel-build-hospital-Syria

*http://en.abna24.com/news/middle-east/injured-terrorists-taken-to-israeli-hospitals-syria_838787.html

*http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/06/25/526436/Syria-Israel-Nusra-Front

*http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/06/21/526028/Israel-Palestine-UN-Syria/

*http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/486

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/2017-nwo-anniversaries-2/

*http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/another-israeli-land-grab-syria/ri20143

*https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-gives-secret-aid-to-syrian-rebels-1497813430

*http://istosnews.com/en/2017/06/wall-street-journal-israel-secretly-aiding-syria-militants/

*http://bollyn.com/why-do-isis-videos-come-from-israeli-intelligence/

*http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-doubles-down-on-support-for-moral-us-strike-on-syria/

*http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.741543

*http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

*http://www.globes.co.il/en/article.aspx?did=1001084873

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOf7jzc7faY

*http://anonhq.com/putin-exposes-40-countries-that-finance-isis/

*http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/06/14/525299/Turkish-opposition-lawmaker-Berberoglu-prsion-sentence-Gulen-links-failed-coup-Erdogan

*http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-evidence-of-us-support-for-isis/5595151

*http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/britain-helped-create-isis.html

Australian City Council Halts Construction Of Synagogue Over Fears That ISIS Could Target It

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

People living in the West have given up a lot to satisfy their government’s concerns over terrorism. Here in the US for instance, our right to privacy in our homes, on our persons, and especially in our communications, has essentially died since 9/11. Everything we say on our phones or search on the internet is catalogued by the NSA without a warrant, we can’t fly on an airplane without being groped and prodded by TSA agents, it’s now fairly common to be forced through police checkpoints many miles away from any border.

The US isn’t alone in this regard. Across the board, every Western nation has sacrificed essential freedoms in the name of combating terrorism. The only difference is that unlike in the US, most Western nations have sacrificed more speech related freedoms rather than privacy (though all Westerners have lost both rights to some degree). This is especially true in Europe and Canada, where expressing right wing opinions or criticizing Islam is now considered a hate crime, and is believed to be an invitation for more terrorist attacks.

Australians however, seems to be close to losing their right to practice any religion they want. That’s what the Jewish community in Sydney learned recently when they tried to build a synagogue. Residents and city council members decided to not let the structure come to fruition because they feared it would invite terrorist attacks.

The temple was to be built in Bondi, a short walk from Australia’s famous Bondi Beach. But locals worried that the space would pose a security risk to nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians. As evidence of that threat, the council pointed to the synagogue’s own design, which included setback buildings and blast walls. They also said the design would have an “unacceptable impact” on the street and neighbourhood.

“A number of residents agreed with the contentions … and provided additional evidence against the development of the site,” the council said in a statement.

And on top of that, the courts complained that the building’s design would only protect the worshipers inside.

But the court sided with the council. In its decision, the court explained that western countries are under threat from Daesh, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and that the potential of an attack in Australia is considered “probable” by government officials. The court also noted that the designs would serve only to protect those inside the building, not those outside.

You know the West is slipping into collectivist madness, when you can’t construct a building that is only designed to protect the people inside of it from an external threat. That would be like saying that you’re not allowed to own body armor because it doesn’t protect bystanders from gunfire. (Oh wait, body armor is highly regulated in Australia and most people who aren’t cops, soldiers, or security guards can’t own it? Color me shocked.) But worst of all, the refusal to let this synagogue be built is nothing more than an admission that the terrorists have won.

“The decision is unprecedented,” Rabbi Yehoram Ulman told news.com.au. “Its implications are enormous. It basically implies that no Jewish organization should be allowed to exist in residential areas. It stands to stifle Jewish existence and activity in Sydney and indeed, by creating a precedent, the whole of Australia, and by extension rewarding terrorism.”

It’s such a big win for terrorism that I doubt any terrorist organization ever expected to have these results. Here’s a country of 24 million people that has lost less than 10 people to terrorism over the past 20 years. They all died at the hands of Islamic radicals, who are known to despise Judaism. Sydney’s response is to prevent a Synagogue from being built in a vain effort to prevent more terrorist attacks. The city is doing exactly what Islamic terrorists want them to do, and these terrorists barely had to lift a finger.

If this kind of moral weakness isn’t overcome in the West, then our freedoms will not survive the next generation.

2016's Terrorism Totals - Over 1,000 Arrested In Europe

According to the latest Europol report, there were 1,002 arrests made for terrorist offences in the EU last year.

You will find more statistics at Statista

Of these, Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes that 718 were related to jihadist terrorism - making three consecutive years of increases. Nevertheless, the majority of the 142 attacks completed, foiled or failed were related to ethno-nationalism and separatism (99). Of these attacks, 47 were classed as "completed".

Terrorism claimed the lives of 142 people in the EU in 2016, with an additional 379 people suffering injuries. Nearly all of these fatalities and most of the casualties occurred as a result of jihadist attacks. The exceptions were six victims of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland and the murder of the UK Member of Parliament Jo Cox, a year ago this month.

Iran Claims Proof Of 'Direct US Support" For ISIS Days After Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Floats The Idea

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Last Thursday, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher praised ISIS for coordinated terrorist attacks in Tehran which left 17 civilians dead - then suggested that the United States should support the terrorist organization in their endeavors to bring regime change to Iran, comparing the situation to working with Stalin"s Russia to get Hitler.

Rohrabacher: Isn"t it a good thing for us to have Untied States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isn"t that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another considering that you have terrorist organizations.

Maybe it"s a good idea to have radical Muslim terrorists fighting each other?

Dr. Asher: Having coordinated the economic warfare plan against the Islamic State, I would not condone an attack by the Islamic State. I would be determined to destroy them.

  

Three days later, Iran says that"s exactly what"s happening...

Iran"s Fars news agency reports that Iran possess documents claiming to prove that the United States provides "Direct" support to ISIS. According to deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces - Major General Mostafa Izadi, Iran is "facing a proxy warfare in the region as a new trick by the arrogant powers against the Islamic Republic."

As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei) said, we possess documents and information showing the direct supports by the US imperialism for this highly disgusting stream (the ISIL) in the region which has destroyed the Islamic countries and created a wave of massacres and clashes -Fars

As ZeroHedge notes, Izadi"s statement echoed remarks made by Iranian politician Ali Larijani last Friday - who pointed a finger directly at the United States for last week"s terrorist attacks in Tehran. At a funeral ceremony for the victims, Larijani said "The United States has aligned itself with the ISIL in the region,"

Turkey"s Erdogan claimed that the US supports ISIS

In December 2016, Turkish President Erdogan said "he has evidence that the US supported terrorists in Syria, including ISIS."

They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State],” he told a press conference, according to Reuters.

“Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It"s very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos. -Erdogan

For years, anyone saying US UK had backed IS terror was branded a "conspiracy theorist". Now, Erdogan says it"s truehttps://t.co/qE9SFBkPoQ

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) December 27, 2016

And in July of 2016, Julian Assange made a similar claim. Additionally - according to Wikileaks and the Podesta emails, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been supporting ISIS as well.

Hillary Clinton email reveals she knew of Saudi & Qatar government funding for ISIL (ISIS) by August 2014 https://t.co/tlWxkEZ8FN pic.twitter.com/RmaFi9lQQP

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 5, 2017

Iran hasn"t said if or when they will release proof of US support for ISIS/ISIL. Better not be trolling...

 In the meantime, perhaps US politicians would be wise not to cheerlead for support of one of the most brutal organizations on the planet. If the USA is in fact funding ISIS - that entire operation needs to be shut down and those responsible held to account.

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

Meotti: Europe Fights Back With Candles And Teddy Bears

Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

• Europe still has not realized that the terror which struck its metropolis was a war, and not the mistake of a few disturbed people who misunderstood the Islamic religion.


• We are apparently not ready to abandon our masochistic rules of engagement, which privilege the enemy"s people over our own.


• It appears that for Europe, Islamic terrorism is not real, but only a momentary disruption of its routine. We fight against global warming, malaria and hunger in Africa. But are we not ready to fight for our civilization? Have we already given up?

This long and sad list is the human harvest of Islamic terrorism on Europe"s soil:

Madrid: 191. London: 58. Amsterdam: 1. Paris: 148. Brussels: 36. Copenhagen: 2. Nice: 86. Stockholm: 5. Berlin: 12. Manchester: 22.

And it does not take into account the hundreds of Europeans butchered abroad, in Bali, in Sousse, in Dakka, in Jerusalem, in Sharm el Sheikh, in Istanbul.

But after 567 victims of terror, Europe still does not understand. Just the first half of 2017 has seen terror attacks attempted in Europe every nine days on average. Yet, despite this Islamist offensive, Europe is fighting back with teddy bears, candles, flowers, vigils, Twitter hashtags and cartoons.

Candles and flowers left behind following an evening vigil on May 23, 2017 in Manchester, England, held after a suicide bombing by an Islamic terrorist who murdered 22 concert-goers the night before. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

After 9/11 and 2,996 victims, the U.S. under George W. Bush rose to the fight. The United States and a few brave European allies, such as the UK, Italy and Spain, proved themselves "the stronger horse". Islamic warriors were thrown on the defensive; Jihadist recruits dropped off and dozens of terror plots were disrupted. But that response did not last. Europe quickly retreated into its own homefront, while the Islamists carried the war onto Europe"s soil: Madrid, London, Theo van Gogh...

Since then, the situation has only become worse: a simple calculation shows that we went from one attack every two years to one attack every nine days. Take just the last six months: Berlin, London, Stockholm, Paris and now Manchester.

Europe has still not realized that the terror which struck its metropolis was a war, and not the mistake of a few disturbed people who misunderstood the Islamic religion. Today there are more British Muslims in the ranks of ISIS than in the British Armed Forces. According with Alexandre Mendel, author of the book Jihadist France, there are more violent Salafists in France than regular soldiers in the Swedish army.

Thirteen years after the attack on Madrid"s trains, Europe"s leaders read from the same script: hiding the images of pain, so as not to scare anyone; concealing that the Islamist attackers are "made in Europe" insiders; repeating that "Islam is a religion of peace"; being prisoners inside our liberties; watching them removed one-by-one while we proclaiming that "we will not change our lifestyle"; and eradicating the fundamentals of our civilization -- freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom of religion -- the entire basis, in fact, of the Judeo-Christian West.

Radical Islam is the greatest threat to Europe since Nazism and Soviet Communism. But we still have not been inclined to question any of the political or ideological pillars that have led to the current disaster, such as multiculturalism and mass immigration. Hard counter-terrorism measures, the only ones that could break the terrorists" plans and morale, have never been taken. These would include shutting down mosques, deporting radical imams, banning foreign funding of mosques, closing toxic non-governmental organizations, draining the welfare financing of Europe"s jihadists, refraining from flirting with jihadists, and stopping foreign fighters from returning home from the battlefront.

We treat war and genocide as if they are simply mistakes made by our intelligence agencies.

We dismiss radical Islam as the "mental illness" of a few disturbed people. Meanwhile, every week, two new Salafist mosques are opened in France, while radical Islam is preached in more than 2,300 French mosques. Thousands of European Muslims have gone off to wage jihad in Syria and Iraq, and fundamentalists are taking control of mosques and Islamic centers. In Brussels, all the mosques are controlled by the Salafists, who are disseminating radical Islam to the Muslim masses.

The sad truth is that Europe has never had the political will to wage a total war against ISIS and the other jihadist groups. Otherwise, Raqaa and Mosul would already have been neutralized. Instead, Islamists have been taking over Molenbeek in Belgium, the French suburbs and large swaths of Britain. We now should be celebrating the liberation of Mosul and the return of Christians to their homes; instead we are mourning 22 people murdered and 64 wounded by an Islamic suicide-bomber in Manchester, and 29 Christians killed in Egypt this week alone.

Serious fighting would require massive bombing to eliminate as many Islamists as possible. But we are apparently not ready to abandon our masochistic rules of engagement, which privilege the enemy"s people over our own. Europe also never demanded that its Muslim communities disavow jihadism and Islamic law, sharia. This silence is what helps Islamists shut the mouths of brave Muslim dissidents. Meanwhile, Europe"s armies are getting smaller by the day, as if we already consider this game done.

After every attack, Europe"s leaders recycle the same empty slogans: "Carry on"; "We are stronger"; "Business as usual". The Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, tells us that we must get used to daily carnage! He says he believes that the threat of terror attacks is "part and parcel of living in a big city", and that major cities around the world "have got to be prepared for these sorts of things". Does he seriously mean that we are supposed to get used to the massacre of our own children in the Manchester Arena? Islamic terror has now become part of the landscape of so many major European cities: Paris, Copenhagen, Nice, Toulouse, Berlin....

Instead of concentrating on jihad and radical Islam, Europe"s leaders continue to talk about the "Russian threat". It would indeed be a mistake to neglect Russian expansionism. But did Vladimir Putin"s troops attack Westminster? Did Russian agents blow themselves up, taking the lives of children at a Manchester concert? Did a former Soviet spy massacre Swedes walking in Stockholm? For Europe"s leaders, talking about Putin appears a welcome distraction from the real enemies.

The French writer Philippe Muray wrote in his book, Dear Jihadists:

"Dear Jihadists! Quake before the wrath of the man in Bermuda shorts! Fear the rage of consumers, of travellers, of tourists, of holiday-makers, who rise from their caravans! Imagine yourselves like us, as we wallow in the joy and luxury that have weakened us".

It seems that for Europe, Islamic terrorism is not real, but only a momentary disruption of its routine. We fight against global warming, malaria and hunger in Africa, and for a global world of equality. But are we not ready to fight for our civilization? Or have we already given up?