Meanwhile In The UK: Going About Our "Normal" Lives?

Authored by Douglas Murray via The Gatestone Institute,

• One of the most striking images from the night of the London Borough Market terror attack was of drinkers being marched out of the Market under police escort with their hands on their heads. The British public at that point looked not like stoical, pugnacious heroes, but like a defeated army being marched into captivity.


• Contrary to all our public statements, we have become terrorised, just as the terrorists want.


• It is a glimpse into the soul of a city; and like all such ugly glimpses, we will turn away from looking at it, rather than considering it and wondering what it truly suggests.

Whenever Britain suffers a terrorist attack -- and it has suffered four Islamist attacks this year alone -- the British public responds the same way.

Twelve years ago, when four suicide bombers detonated homemade bombs on the London underground and on a red-top bus in central London, there was much talk of "Blitz spirit". After 7/7, the media erupted with boasts of wartime echoes. Some people who lived in London noticed a rather different atmosphere. Of course people "got on with their lives" (what else could they do?) but in the days and weeks after the attacks it was not really "business as usual". Especially not after another four suicide bombers went onto the tube a fortnight later, on July 21, and attempted to repeat the exercise. Fortunately, on that occasion the bombs failed to detonate. But during the period that ensued, it was certainly easier than usual to get a seat on the London Underground.

Of course, political leaders relish the opportunity to accentuate and exaggerate these echoes. If the British public are the citizens of London in the Blitz, then the politicians are Winston Churchill. After attacks like the 2013 daytime slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of London, then-Prime Minister David Cameron stressed from the steps of Downing Street that "One of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives. And that is what we shall all do." These themes are thought to play deep to the spirit of the British people.

But the more this conspicuous, self-conscious egging-on of such attitudes is stressed, the thinner it seems to get. In March, after Khalid Masood ploughed a car across Westminster Bridge, mowing down locals and tourists, and crashed the car and stabbed policeman Keith Palmer to death inside the gates of the Palace of Westminster, one prominent British journalist took to the pages of the New York Times to pour out the clichés.

"By Thursday morning, London was, if not quite back to normal, then certainly back in business. As I traveled through the south of the city, up to Chelsea and later over to King"s Cross, Londoners really were going about their lives as on any other day.

 

"This behavior reflects something deeper than conscious defiance, I think. It would simply not occur to the 8.6 million citizens of this megalopolis to allow one man to send them into hiding. As they say in the East End, you"re having a laugh, aren"t you?"

One wonders when the author last went into an East End pub to have a pint, and whether he honestly believes such honest cockneys still reside there? Nevertheless, he went to boast of the "stoicism" and "ancestral pride" that still exists there and to insist that, "The only way to proceed is -- in the much-loved British slogan -- to keep calm and carry on." Quite why this spirit is meant to reside in the bones of a city in which most of its current residents (according to the last census) have arrived in the decades since the Second World War is never clear.

Similar clichés spilled out after the suicide bombing at the Manchester Arena in May. They came out yet again after the London Bridge attack in June. Yet one of the most striking images from that night was of drinkers in Borough Market, where the terrorists finished their assault, being marched out of the Market under police escort with their hands on their heads. The British public at that point, at any rate, looked not like stoical, pugnacious heroes, but like a defeated army being marched into captivity. Still the clichés continued. The day after the attack, in her address to the nation, Prime Minister Theresa May assured the public that "Our response must be as it has always been when we have been confronted by violence. We must come together, we must pull together."

One of the most striking images from the June 3, 2017 Borough Market terror attack was of drinkers being marched out of the Market under police escort with their hands on their heads. The British public at that point looked not like stoical, pugnacious heroes, but like a defeated army being marched into captivity. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

So it is interesting to consider, beneath all the talk of business as usual, and Blitz spirit, and keeping calm and carrying on, what, in fact, are the British public actually feeling? Last month provided a sobering demonstration.

Early in the evening on Friday, November 24 there were reports of shots having been fired at Oxford Circus station. A crowd stampede occurred, with people fleeing in terror down Oxford Street and other parts of one of London"s busiest shopping areas. Terrified crowds barricaded themselves into local shops. A celebrity singer and television presenter called Olly Murs tweeted to his millions of followers that he was in Selfridges department store. "F**k everyone get out of Selfridges now gun shots!! I"m inside." That was his first unwise tweet, followed up shortly after with, "Really not sure what"s happened! I"m in the back office... but people screaming and running towards exits!"

The police announced that they were responding to events as though they were a terrorist incident. Social media and some early national media reports said that not only gunshots had been heard but that a vehicle had ploughed into pedestrians on Oxford Street and that there were bodies and blood everywhere.

Within an hour, however, all this turned out to be nonsense. Not only had there been no vehicular attack -- there had been no gunmen. Reports that the incident may have been sparked by a gang fight rather than a terrorist attack were themselves later quashed. The next day two men who thought they might have been responsible for the panic voluntarily came into a police station and were released without charge. The only casualties from the incident were 16 people injured, one seriously, as a cause of the mass stampede out of Oxford Circus station and through the neighbouring area.

Incidents like this one in London last month easily flow by in the news cycle, and are easily forgotten. They will not be referred to in the speeches of any politician and they immediately fell away from even the "News in Brief" sections of the nation"s media. But they are in fact extremely telling. They suggest that rather than being this persistently stoical, unbending and resilient people, the citizens of London have absorbed the lessons of the terror attacks of the last year and the terror attacks across Europe that have occurred in the years preceding them, in Paris and elsewhere. Contrary to all our public statements, we have become terrorised, just as the terrorists want. So much so that a minor altercation on an average evening can lead to a mass panic, a crowd stampede, and terrified public figures bleating to their followers about wholly imagined horrors. It is a glimpse into the soul of a city. And like all such ugly glimpses, we will turn away from looking at it, rather than consider it and wondering what it truly suggests.

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.

Britain To Criminalize Reading Online Extremist Content

Authored by Stephen Lendman,

Like America, Britain is unfit and unsafe to live in – both countries police states, serving privileged interests exclusively, allied in waging wars OF terror in multiple theaters, along with abolishing fundamental homeland freedoms.

The latest civil rights abuse came from hardline home secretary Amber Rudd.

She’s spearheading a Tory effort to criminalize readership of so-called extremist content online – punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The same holds for anyone publishing content Tories call extremist, especially about Britain’s military, intelligence services and police that could be considered related to preparing terrorist acts.

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” Rudd blustered, adding:

“There is currently a gap in the law around material (that) is viewed or streamed from the Internet without being permanently downloaded.”

“This is an increasingly common means by which material is accessed online for criminal purposes and is a particularly prevalent means of viewing extremist material such as videos and web pages.”

A Home Office analysis showed thousands of online ISIS tweets and other material over the past year.

Unmentioned was US and UK support for the terrorist group, recruiting, arming, funding, training and directing its fighters, using them as imperial foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

The way to end extremist online content from ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups is by no longer supporting them, combating their fighters instead of using them.

Most important is ending US-led imperial wars in multiple theaters. ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups were created to serve as imperial ground forces, aided by Pentagon-led terror-bombing.

Changes Rudd proposed aim to strengthen Britain’s 2000 Terrorism Act. It authorizes civil liberties-destroying police powers, including repressive stop-and-searches ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

It criminalizes being a member of, supporting, or wearing clothing arousing suspicion of involvement with a proscribed group. Dozens named are nearly all Muslim ones.

Current UK law applies only to downloaded and saved extremist material. Proposed changes criminalize reading it online.

Commenting on the proposed measure, Law Professor Jonathan Turley noted that “civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state.”

Tories aren’t “satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet.”

“As always, officials are basically telling the public to ‘trust us, we’re the government.’ “ Criminalizing readership of online content amounts to “an anti-civil liberties campaign.”

A previous article discussed Prime Minister Theresa May wanting greater government control of the Internet.

If readership of material Tories call unacceptable is criminalized, what’s next?

Thought control? Criminalizing legitimate criticism of government policies? Public protests against government policies? Banning free expression on any topics online or in public spaces altogether?

Turley quoted from Orwell’s 1984 as follows:

“We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.”

“The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.”

“They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.”

“We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.”

“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

America, Britain and other Western nations are heading toward instituting full-blown tyranny.

Perhaps another state-sponsored 9/11-type incident will assure it.

Foreign Affairs Mag Advances Domestic Terrorism To Remove Alternative Media

Submitted by Mike Miles, journalist, writer and book author

Foreign Affairs Magazine Advances Domestic Terrorism To Remove Alternative Media

Is Foreign Affairs magazine advancing “domestic terrorism” because it could help remove alternative media, and even jail editors and writers or worse. The recent article is entitled “Should We Treat Domestic Terrorists the Way We Treat ISIS? What Works—and What Doesn"t.” It begins as follows:

The mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night has again raised fears about terrorism. There’s much we don’t yet know. The Islamic State (ISIS) has claimed the attack, but the FBI claims that there is no international terrorism link. The attacker, Stephen Paddock, was 64 years old and white, fitting a stereotype of a right-wing terrorist more than a jihadist one. And he may just be a crazy nut. But regardless of Paddock’s particular pathology, the situation highlights how the United States treats similar forms of violence differently depending on the nature of the perpetrator.  

Many commentators have already demanded that we make a case for domestic terrorism including such prominent Youtubers as Philip DeFranco. He runs a website of some six million and offers mildly libertarian commentary. But perhaps he doesn’t understand that he may eventually become a victim of what he wants to invoke. There are many such well-meaning people who quite possibly misunderstand what is happening

How about PropOrNot? This outfit lists around websites “friendly” to Russia and in total includes many of the major alternative websites in the country. Those who run the website say they believe these sites provide propaganda for Russia. 

A recent reading of PropOrNot seems to reveal that the site may have reduced some of the finger-pointing. It says that it does not “censor.” However it continues to list websites nonetheless. The Washington Post drew information from PropOrNot long ago when it was trying to paint alternative websites as Russian sympathizers.

Interestingly, the recent shooting in Las Vegas didn’t make much sense to some people because neither the shooter nor people shot fit into known patterns of terrorism – or so we are told. But what if the real reason to shoot so many people was at least in part to create support for domestic terrorism?

It is surely “conspiratorial” to ask such a question and certainly it must seem far-fetched. On the other hand some commentators have pointed out that there may have been at least two shooters on two separate floors. 

The main point here is that the determination to assault the alternative media seems to have taken a big step forward with this article in Foreign Affairs magazine. No new legislation may be needed, according to the article. The FBI simply needs to go after people who are supposedly questionable.  Sooner or later this could include the alternative media.

Here’s a quote from the end of the article that back-peddles from some of its more Draconian observations about what the FBI could easily do once people supposedly began to make a fuss about “terrorism” on America’s shores:

… Legislation should factor in counterterrorism measures we don’t want as well as ones we do. … The language should be tightly worded and subject to regular legislative oversight—the definition of a foreign terrorist organization is broad, and any domestic legislation should focus heavily on the threat or use of violence and be regularly reviewed to ensure that changes in group behavior are reflected.

And another quote:

The right-wing threat in particular is comparable to that of jihadist violence at home, and similar resources should be allocated to addressing it. The FBI and DHS should create larger offices dedicated to domestic groups and otherwise develop their intelligence presence.

Will the FBI really be subject to “legislative oversight” and be “regularly reviewed.” The people suggesting this supposed advancement are, at the top, possibly some of the most powerful and wealthy people on the planet. This project may not be bound by constraints any more than the current investigation into Trump is being adequately constrained. And it may be happening sooner rather than later.

Of course maybe Congress has dropped legislative authority to create a well-funded group of reporters that will “expose” the alternative media in the US and perhaps abroad. On the  other hand, the move to concentrate on domestic terrorism and then to heighten the battle against the alternative media seems like it could be advancing in earnest. It is certainly possible that the alternative media read by tens of millions is ready to repel the FBI and other forces that could be trying to remove it. But what if it is not?

UK Embraces Pre-Crime - Brits Face 15 Years In Prison For Watching "Terrorist Material"

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The UK’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, is the latest bureaucrat to highlight the increased global trend of governments going completely insane.

Her latest plan is to threaten the British population with up to 15 years in prison for the crime of watching “terrorist material.” Yes, you read that right.

The Guardian reports:

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.

 

A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.

The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.

The UK is clearly embracing pre-crime here, since it’s clear someone watching terrorist propaganda in the privacy of their own home does not harm anyone else.

Thus, this is a victimless crime, and as I’ve maintained on many occasions, I do not believe such a thing exists. If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.

What the UK is arguing here is that watching “terrorist material” increases the likelihood of someone committing a violent terrorist attack in the future. So you’re actually being punished for what you might potentially do in the future.

This is pre-crime and it’s totally insane. 

Beyond that, we can pretty much guarantee that the definition of “terrorist material” will expand over time to whatever politicians don’t want the rabble exposed to.

But it gets worse still. Here’s what Rudd had to say about her government’s demented crusade against technology itself.

Rudd also caused some consternation at the fringe meeting by criticising the tech industry for their “patronising” attitude that “sneered” at politicians who did not always get it right.

She claimed it was not necessary for her to understand how end-to-end encryption worked to know that it was helping criminals.

It’d be funny if it weren’t so incredibly sad.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Kamala Harris Calls For Congressional Investigation Of "White Supremacist Terrorism"

Kamala Harris, the California senator and rumored 2020 candidate for the White House, is now apparently working with the Senate Homeland Security Committee to demand an immediate investigation on the "root causes" of "violent white supremacy" in the United States following the recent tragedy in Charlottesville.  

The Senate Homeland Security Committee Democrats & I are calling for a hearing on violent white supremacy to examine root causes.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 22, 2017

Meanwhile, she also started an online petition to collect signatures for hearings on what she dubs "white supremacist terrorism."

"Demand Senate hearings on white supremacist terrorism"

"The federal government has a responsibility to address the rise of white supremacist violence and ensure that all our citizens are safe from domestic terrorism."

"Add your name to demand Republicans schedule hearings on violent white supremacy and other forms of hateful domestic extremism"

Of course, this is all part of the Left"s new propaganda initiative designed specifically to convince you that the "extreme right" (which we assume is now synonymous with "white supremacist") is "the number one domestic terror threat in the U.S."  In fact, here is nearly identical language from CNN"s Chris Cuomo used just last week (it"s almost as if the media coordinates with Democrats on the language and branding efforts):

“If you take anarchists at their worst, do you have malefactor? Do you have criminals in their ranks? Do you have people who do violent things? Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is not a moral equivalency to the KKK,” Cuomo said. “It’s certainly not an equivalent to what we see on the right. Just look at the stats. The number one domestic terror threat in the U.S. is the extreme right. There is not even a close second.”

“That’s all they’re about is hate. Two out of three people on this panel they don’t want to exist!”

All of which we guess is completely accurate if you simply ignore the 2,996 people killed in the 9/11 attacks, 49 people killed in the Orlando night club shooting, 14 people killed in San Bernadino, etc.

Meanwhile, we can only assume that violent antifa protests, like the ones conducted during Trump"s inauguration that included a bunch of folks running around with baseball bats and hammers, attacking cops and destroying private property, don"t fit Harris" definition of "domestic terrorism."

Perhaps Harris" time, and taxpayers" dollars, may be better used trying to figure out why Chicago residents are committing 800 murders every single year than why 1 psychopath committed 1 truly awful murder last week...just a thought.

Denmark Offers Homes, Education To Jihadists In "Hug A Terrorist" Rehab Program

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

There’s a very simple principle that helps form the bedrock of any prosperous and civilized society. When people do bad things, they should be punished for it. The moment that rule is turned upside down, and the wicked and weak are rewarded for their behavior, society will crumble. There’s no way around it. Every society that rewards bad behavior is on the fast track to destruction.

You might think that would be obvious, but there are plenty of nations throughout history that have fallen under the weight of corruption, in one form or another. Our species has made this mistake countless times. We never learn, and we always pay for it.

Next on the chopping block of history is Denmark, where the police in the city of Aarhus are now essentially rewarding people who have been accused of being terrorists.

Denmark’s second largest city is attempting to tackle terrorism by offering jihadists “empathy” in a programme dubbed “hug a terrorist.”

Whilst Danes who have fought against Islamic State have been threatened with jail on their return from Syria, terrorists are being offered enormous privileges, including apartments, education, and jobs, to encourage them to rejoin society.

Proponents of the police-run scheme in Aarhus say that jihadists are “isolated” and struggling to integrate, and claim that offering them kindness and forgiveness will deter them from their murderous ideology.

Aarhus Police Superintendent Allan Aarsley explains how troubled Muslim youths were invited to come to the police station for a chat,

"...so they could get some kind of help having a good life here in the city with education, a place to live and things like that."

However, according to Dateline, an Australian news show, the controversial program has received its fair share of criticism.

Danish politician Naser Khader, a Muslim born in Syria, says it sends the wrong message and rewards terrorists who have effectively made war on the West and its values.

He told Australian news programme Dateline the “hug a terrorist” model tells young Muslims: “Go out and do something criminal, be jihadis, you will get a lot of privilege from the society. That’s wrong in my opinion.”

During an appearance on Fox and Friends, Dr. James Mitchell, a former CIA agent who interrogated the mastermind behind 9/11, called the program “extremely naïve.”

"I want you to imagine Rob O"Neill, the guy who shot bin Laden, kicking open the door in his compound, and he"s armed with warm cookies and a "Let"s Cuddle" t-shirt. And he goes, "Get on over here, you rascal. I got lots of hugs for you,"" said Mitchell. "It"s a ridiculous idea."

"You can"t raise a child in a stove-piped community where they"re taught that the entire culture that they"re supposed to assimilate in is evil and out to hold them down, and then when they become an adult expect them to do anything except rebel," he said.

If you applied this approach to literally any other crime you would be heavily criticized by everyone else in society, and for good reason. You wouldn’t give a thief a job, a rapist a free education, or a murderer an apartment. In any decent society these people are thrown in prison. Only after they’ve paid for their crimes, should you even consider helping them readjust to society. Furthermore, if you’re going to reward terrorism, then why bother punishing anyone for anything? Why bother keeping any bad behavior in check?

It’s just common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is quickly dwindling in the Western world.

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.

Is The Mafia Helping ISIS Smuggle Oil Into Italy?

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

The Italian mafia may have teamed up with the Islamic State to smuggle crude oil from the Middle East into Italy, an ongoing police investigation has suggested, according to The Times who cited a report by La Repubblica.

The Italian daily noted that the police had found substantial amounts of Libyan and Syrian crude that were greater than some local refineries’ inventories, with sources connected with the investigation saying that crude, “should not have been there.”

Yet the police have no evidence that the oil came from IS, or whether it came from another non-extremist group of traffickers, because the cargoes passed through intermediaries, which helped the original senders mask their tracks.

The way the mafia smuggles oil into Italy is by setting up shale companies abroad that act as oil exporters. They sell crude directly to gas station operators at much lower prices, and then close the shell companies. The mafia uses the scheme to avoid VAT payments and to launder money.

The logistics involve tankers rendezvousing with smaller vessels out of Turkey and Libya in the middle of the Mediterranean.

The smugglers transfer the oil from the smaller vessels to the larger ones, and then return the small vessels to their country of origin while the bigger tankers set sail for the southern Italian ports. 

It seems that the IS-mafia hypothesis has emerged because of the terrorist group’s heavy reliance on revenues from oil contraband, but recently IS has lost most of the territories it controlled in Syria and Iraq, so its access to oil to smuggle has also declined sharply.

Experts who spoke to La Repubblica were skeptical of such a connection, but last month, journalist Francesca Astorri reported on a propaganda e-book titled Black Flags from Rome, in which the Islamic State said support from the mafia was crucial for its penetration in Italy.

The question remains whether the two organizations are rivals or partners. Their revenue-generating activities are similar, including drug trafficking, goods smuggling, and kidnappings, but the mafia would hardly be well-disposed to a group that essentially wants to encroach on its territory.

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.

Theresa May Vows To Rip Up Human Rights Laws To "Restrict The Freedom Of Terrorist Suspects"

Following a series of devastating attacks in the U.K. and mounting criticism of her counter-terrorism record, Theresa May has vowed to do whatever necessary, if re-elected later this week, to "restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects" even it means ripping up "human rights laws that get in the way."  Among other things, the Prime Minister has said she will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and will extend existing laws that restrict the freedom of British suspects on whom authorities "have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court." Per The Telegraph:

"When I stood on the steps of Downing Street after the London attack I said enough is enough and things have got to change."

"We need to take on the ideology that unites and motivates the perpetrators of these attacks."

“We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."

"And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them."

"If I am elected as Prime Minister on Thursday, I can tell you that this vital work begins on Friday."

As the Telegraph further notes, other contemplated actions would include efforts to force internet service providers to restrict access to extremist websites, tighter restrictions on mobile device usage by terror suspects and more aggressive curfews.

May had already announced plans for longer prison sentences for terrorists and a clamp down on internet firms that enable access to extremist material, but she now wants to go further.

She will extend the powers of police and the courts to restrict the movements of terrorist suspects using Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (Tpims).

It will mean suspects can be kept under curfews for longer periods each day, tighter controls on suspects associating with each other and more people being banned from using mobile phones and the internet.

Human Rights laws also held up the deportation of the hate preacher Abu Qatada to his native Jordan, and Mrs May says she will find ways to prevent future deportations being delayed.

If not for the artful wording, one could almost confuse the comments above for Trump quotes.  Of course, if Trump dared to propose such aggressive measures to combat terrorism the accusations of racism would ring out far and wide and Maxine Waters would have impeachment proceedings scheduled by the end of the day.

May Vows "Enough Is Enough", Slams "Evil Islamist Extremism" As "One Of Great Challenges Of Our Time"

After the third deadly terrorist attack on UK soil in less than three months (and one which paradoxically took place just days after the UK lowered its "imminent attack" terror alert), Prime Minister Theresa May - facing a crucial election on Thursday - vowed to (finally?) step up Britain’s fight against Islamist extremism, saying “enough is enough” after Saturday night"s terrorist attacks left seven dead and 48 injured.

Calling for the country to unite, which incidentally is what she did after the last two terror attacks in a well-meaning gesture that achieved nothing, the British Prime Minister said in a Sunday statement that "it is time to say enough is enough, everybody needs to go about their lives as they normally would. Our society should continue to function in accordance with our values. But when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change."  It was not immediately clear just what #hashtag campaign on Twitter would embody this particular vow.

In her words:

We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are. Things need to change, and they need to change in four important ways.

First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division, and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.

Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say enough is enough. Everybody needs to go about their lives as they normally would. Our society should continue to function in accordance with our values. But when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change

Incidentally, saying that "it is time to say enough is enough" is ironic, because those who have been saying the exact same thing and urging for more aggressive countermeasures, have been broadly branded as "racists", and muted by various social networks. This time, however, Trump"s appeal for less political correctness appears to have struck a chord and May called the threat from radical Islamism “one of the great challenges of our time”, and warned there was “far too much tolerance of extremism in our country”.

The prime minister said the recent attacks in England are bound together "by the single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism" and added that Britain"s counter-terrorism strategy must be reviewed due to "what we are learning about the changing threat."

"Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism, our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public," she said.

As after all previous terrorist attacks, May said the country"s response to the violence is the need to unite. "We must come together, we must pull together, and united we will take on and defeat our enemies." Alas, that promises in itself has had exactly zero impact on the dreaded and deadly "Islamist extremism."

So what did May propose?

In her address, she said that in light of the changing threat a review was needed of Britain’s current counter-terrorism strategy to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need." The focus of the review? Facebook. May called for tighter regulation of the internet to deny extremist ideology the “safe space it needs to breed”.  Because without access to Facebook and Twitter there would be fewer terrorist attacks, the argument supposedly goes.

Shortly after May"s speech, police said 12 people had been arrested in Barking, East London, as officers continued to search a number of addresses in the area. Which while a noble start, is woefully insufficient. As we reported last week, UK Intel Agencies have identified 23,000 potential Jihadis living in Britain, according to a report published in the Times of London on Saturday.  The report emerged ironically after U.K. May downgraded the terror threat to “severe,” after raising it “critical” on Tuesday in the aftermath of the attacks.

Of this "pool" of potential terrorists, 3,000 are suspected of posing an “imminent threat” and are being investigated accordingly, the Times reported. In light of last night"s events, the were clearly not being investigated closely enough.

Ron Paul Asks "Are We Fighting Terrorism, Or Creating More Terrorism?"

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.

What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Last week alone, US and “coalition” attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.

Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that “collateral damage” is just another word for “murder”?

The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to “fight terrorism.” Have we not been in a “war on terrorism” for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.

They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.

But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?

The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to “fight terrorism” can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism.

They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.

Ex-NYPD Cop Gets 15 Months for Pimping Hundreds of Women to NY’s Elite

New York, NY — There are only eight counties in the United States where prostitution is legal, all in Nevada. But that didn’t stop one retired police officer, who was drawing disability and receiving a pension, from starting up his own escort service, raking in millions of dollars in the process.

Unfortunately for Michael Rizzi (45), his fellow law enforcement officers found out about it and put a stop to it. Rizzi was arrested last year when it was discovered he operated 58 escort service websites.

The Department of Homeland Security investigated Rizzi and arrested him at his Brooklyn home in May of 2016. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 14 months in prison for money laundering.

After he serves his time, the dirty ex-cop will spend four months in home confinement and two years probation. He forfeited over $120,000 in cash as well as his Florida vacation home.

Reportedly, Rizzi raked in millions upon millions of dollars and laundered the money through a vast system of shell corporations connected to organized crime. DHS can hardly be pleased with only recovering a little over one hundred thousand dollars. All of which begs the question, “Where’s the rest of the money?”

Also concerning to some was the fact the former police officer wasn’t charged with running an illegal prostitution ring. His lawyer reportedly defended his client’s actions saying the only business with which he was engaged was an escort service and the women knew there were not obligated to perform sexual favors for clients.

Rizzi’s business was called BJM Manhatten Stakes and Entertainment and directed interested Johns to call booking agents to set up the dates with high paid escorts earning as little as $600 per hour with one reportedly bringing in $25,000 in one 24 hour period.

Judge Carol Amon presided over the criminal case and ordered his assets seized, which included the websites as well. U.S. Attorney Bridget Rhode reflected on the life of the former law enforcement officer.

“Michael Rizzi left behind a life of law enforcement for a new career in which he flagrantly disregarded the law and exploited others for his own enrichment…This office is committed to dismantling money laundering organizations, including those which promote and capitalize on illegal prostitution.”

If it’s true Mr. Rizzi took in millions; then the Feds walked away with very little to show for their investigative efforts. Web sites can be replaced, as well as the home and the chump change confiscated.

But those who are caught up in human trafficking, who may have unwillingly worked for Rizzi at one time or another, may be the real victims in the former law enforcement officer’s shady schemes.

For those who want to go down the rabbit hole into conspiracy theories, one could ask the question why the Feds chose not to investigate the prostitution ring, and its connections to wealthy clients, such as politicians, billionaires, etc.

After all, in the very beginning, the Feds made it clear they were only concerned with the money laundering, a crime for which the federal government receives no revenue. Homeland Security Investigations Assistant in Charge Steven Schrank said, “At the end of the day, we’re focused on the money laundering and organized crime connections to this investigation.”

Schrank claimed Rizzi “moved multiple millions of dollars through shell corporations that operated in and out of New York, and in the financial crime arena, we’re very concerned about the movement of illicit proceeds through shell corporations.”

Absent from his concerns were any mention of the human assets who, one could say, were trafficked from John to John, whether or not they did so willingly or not.

Maybe the answer to the question of why the Feds chose to go after the money instead of The Who’s Who of clients comes from Rizzi’s own admission. He reportedly bragged, “I’m number one for a reason…I get the most business, my girls make the most money, my clients are the wealthiest people in the world.”

In the Land of the Free, it is against the law to get paid to have sex, unless that sex is filmed, distributed on DVD, and taxed. One of the least talked about systems of oppression in the US is that of persecuting prostitutes.

When referencing prostitution, we are talking about the mutually beneficial exchange of sexual favors for money by two or more consenting partners; not forced human trafficking.

It’s called the “oldest profession in the world” for a reason. Sex is a basic human need. One need only observe the explosive population growth of humans in the last 10,000 years to see that desire to mate is inherent in each and everyone one of us.

When one takes this into consideration, the notion of outlawing consensual sex is seen for what it is, sheer insanity.

Just like the war on drugs creates crime by pushing the unending demand for illicit substances into the black market, the war on the sex trade creates crime in the same manner.

Because the demand for sex is pushed into dark alleys and late night street corners, a woman working in the sex trade becomes far more vulnerable than if they were legally allowed to operate out of brick and mortar setups. This danger of working on the street drives the need for protection from pimps who are often more abusive than any customer would be.

Despite the tens of thousands of arrests each year, the market has found a way to provide the service of sex using safer solutions. In spite of the laws, sellers of sex have found ways to safely conduct business by setting up “massage” parlors, using phone books, and, of course, the internet — like Rizzi.

Besides being an immoral gang of thieves, the state is also relentless. They have deep pockets of extorted tax dollars of which to dig in to enforce their distorted will on the people.

Despite prostitution arrests dropping from 2001 to 2010, the cost of arresting people for sex remains staggeringly high. Individual cities continue to spend up to $23 million a year stopping people from having voluntary sex.

Meanwhile, involuntary sex goes uninvestigated at an alarming rate. Hundreds of thousands of rape kits are sitting in police departments across the country — collecting dust, as cops petition the government to allow them to have sex with prostitutes so they can then bust them.

In police state USA, truth is stranger than fiction.

For Sale On The Dark Web: Your Tax Refund And Social Security Number

After death, and taxes, we can now add a third "certainty" to life - identity theft.

Amid the business of tax season, it"s not just accountants that are toiling hard to collect their fees. As Bloomberg reports, tax season is hog heaven for cybercriminals. The thought of all that personal data just sitting around, unmolested in tax documents, inspires a torrent of creepy scammer creativity.

The Krebs on Security blog provided a glimpse earlier this year of how our tax data is bought and sold, and what scammers charge other scammers for our data.

Founder Brian Krebs came across something he hadn’t seen before on the Dark Web: Bulk sales of W-2 forms.

A scammer had phished a tax preparation firm, Krebs discovered, and was offering for sale 3,600 Florida W-2s in this cyber netherworld which, while connected to the everyday web, requires special software or authorization to access.

Bloomberg notes that the fruits of all the successful phishing attempts wind up on the Dark Web.

These offers can look run of the mill, complete with star ratings for sellers. Here is a screenshot showing sellers and their illegal wares, such as W-2s, taken from IBM’s report:

The Dark Web has its own selling language. “Fullz” means complete information on an individual, including, according to the IBM report, “payment card information, address and contact details, and other additional pieces of personally identifiable information, such as Social Security number, a driver’s license number, and any other information sold along with the set.”

An individual’s tax data is far more valuable than their credit card data. Stolen credit card data might sell for $1 or be given away to establish credibility on the Dark Web, said Limor Kessem, executive security adviser of IBM Security. Credit card accounts can be closed or frozen, and thus have a short criminal-shelf life.

“Tax filing information is probably the most premium type of record criminals can buy on the underground,” said Kessem, who has been tracking this world for eight years.

“It goes for $40 or $50, and unlike credit cards, never expires. People can try and get loans in someone’s name, make fake IDs in people’s names, get credit.” And of course, the top target is filing a tax return in someone"s name and getting the refund.

With phishing attacks on the rise, Bloomberg suggests a consumer’s best defense is a good offense. One of the simplest, when it comes to tax refund fraud: File your taxes early to beat would-be scammers to the punch.

Europe Unveils New Gun Laws: "Like Putting A Band-Aid On A Bullet Wound"

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

The EU has almost regulated firearms enough to keep people completely safe from terrorism. Just one more law, and they should be able to usher Europe into a new age of utopian peace.

What happened:

The European Parliament passed a bill this month which closes loopholes in regards to “acoustic” and “deactivated” prop guns to make them irreversibly unusable.

If the law passes the Council of Ministers, it will also apply stricter regulations on semi-autos with high capacity magazines.

Included in the bill are obligations of member states to monitor the issuance of firearms licenses, and share that information across the EU.

Countries in the EU will have 30 months to implement the required procedures for tracking firearms.

What this means:

With so much focus on tracking firearms, it is interesting to note that one of the weapons used in the Paris terror attacks may have been acquired through “Operation Fast and Furious,” where the ATF purposely leaked guns into criminal hands for the supposed purpose of tracking them.

But yes, why doesn’t the European Parliament simply require more tracking of guns, since it has worked so well in the past.

And then of course we will have to ban trucks, since those have been used in multiple terror attacks across Europe.

Because the root of the issue is access to items that could be used as weapons, right? It has nothing to do with deep ideological differences of people from a region plagued by war.

The EU passing more gun laws is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.

The vice grip of government tightens; as always they say just a little more control will keep everyone safe.