Islamic Terrorist Weilding Knife Commemorates Charlie Hebdo Massacre Anniversary By Getting Shot By Police

This year is very likely going to be a bad one for Islamic terrorism in the West.

Here it is:

Paris police have shot dead a knife-wielding man who tried to enter a police station shouting “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) and who may have been wearing a suicide belt, officials say.

The incident took place just minutes after President Francois Hollande had given a speech to security forces in an another part of Paris to mark the first anniversary of last year’s deadly militant Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in the French capital.

“The man may have been wearing something that could be a suicide belt,” Interior ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told BFM TV.

“Whether it was operational or not, it is too early to say.”

A police union source said the belt appeared to be fake.

“The bomb-disposal unit confirmed it was a fake,” the source said.

The man had tried to force entry into the police station in the 18th district of northern Paris, an area that Islamic State had said after even deadlier Paris attacks in November that it had been planning to hit.

“According to our colleagues he wanted to blow himself up,” an official at the Alternative Police union said.

“He shouted Allahu Akbar and had wires protruding from his clothes. That’s why the police officer opened fire.”

Officials said bomb disposal experts were on site.

Journalist Anna Polonyi, who could see the body on the pavement from the window of her flat, posted photos on social media that showed the body with what appeared to be a bomb-disposal robot beside it.

She said that her sister, in the flat with her, saw the incident happen.

She said the police shouted at the man and that he then started running towards them before they shot him.

It’s worth remembering that we in the West are only getting taster-trays of the three course meal that the Middle East eats on a day to day basis.


The Failed Marxist Logic Of Tax-Free Tampons

Not only are the bunch of the protesters fighting for this disgusting and vulgar (no, having a menstrual cycle isn’t vulgar but wearing white pants and allowing memorial blood to soak your pants in protest is – a typical leftist-style protest) but their logic is a complete and utter failure.

The story goes that the usual government taxes on goods and services are apparently sexist because women’s sanitary products are “necessitated by biology.”

The solution in the minds of these uber-feminist Marxist-types?

No taxes, of course.

After all, free stuff is a right, especially if you are an entitled leftist.

I wonder when they’ll be fighting for tax free food and water, given these are actually necessitated by biology.

Sanitary items are actually closer in nature to clothing, which is socially and even legally necessitate but certainly not biologically – you don’t actually need either. Yes, I am saying that nudity and free-flowing menstruation won’t cause you to die but we don’t want either out in society.

But if this is really about equality as these types always claim (really double speak for special privileges and greater power for Marxist types), then we should expect to see them calling for taxes to be dropped from all sorts of products that relate to specific groups of people.

Babies need nappies, so ditch that tax!

So do old people sometimes!

What about dental work because decaying teeth is a biological trap from which no one escapes?

If my body starts failing in other ways, whether gout, heart attack, aching arches or diabetes, why should I pay taxes on the fixes?

But leftists have a keen habit of selective, double standards and this is just another example of their dangerous religion at work, dividing society into groups and insisting some deserve special privileges because the others are hateful, oppressive enemies (in this case, all men everywhere!)

Contrast this with Christ Jesus who unites people in love for God and for humanity.

In summary, this is not a victory for women, it’s a victory for leftists! A victory from which very few people benefit and in the long run, none.

Men and women dressed as bloodied tampons is not a common sight in the streets of Paris, but over the past few weeks, activists have been congregating to protest against the French tax on feminine hygiene products.

Why, they asked, should women pay extra for essential healthcare items?

Members of feminist collective Georgette Sand, which spearheaded the campaign for the ‘tampon tax’ to be abolished, carried a clothesline swathed with blood-stained underwear.

And their protests worked. After initially rejecting an amendment to abolish the tax, French MPs on Friday voted to make life fairer for half the population by lowering the VAT on pads and tampons from 20 per cent to 5.5 per cent.

The government had previously been opposed to the proposal, saying it would cost $60 million, but on Friday announced it had “found the money” to back the measure.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls described the move as a “step in the right direction”, while Finance Minister Michel Sapin said the reduction was “in the interest of half of humanity”.

Georgette Sand hailed the amendment as a “victory”, and called on manufacturers and retailers to pass the reduction on to consumers.

France’s move to drop the tax on feminine hygiene products has renewed calls for the Australian Government to follow suit and stop taxing women for their basic biology.

Greens co-deputy leader Larissa Waters praised France’s leadership and called for the Government to reconsider its decision earlier this year not to remove the GST from feminine hygiene products. It must be removed, she told the ABC, because it “increases financial gender inequality”.

“Other health items that both women and men buy, like sunscreen and condoms, are exempt – why should it be any different for essential health items that only women need?”

In May, a CommunityRun petition urging then-treasurer Joe Hockey to remove the GST from menstrual products garnered more than 100,000 signatures and reignited the long-running tampon tax debate.

“People who get periods don’t buy pads and tampons for pleasure, so why are we forced to fork out an extra 10 per cent every two, three, four weeks?” petition founder Subeta Vimalarajah said.

“Taxing Australians for getting their period isn’t just sexist, it’s fundamentally unfair.”

Appearing on the ABC’s Q&A program, Mr Hockey agreed the GST “probably should” be removed from tampons, but in August ruled it out after a meeting with state and federal treasurers “failed to come to a unanimous agreement”.

Following a request from the Federal Opposition, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) in June estimated removing the tax on tampons would cost the budget $480 million over 10 years, or $70 million over the first two years of its operation from mid-2017.

Government ‘not doing enough to address gender inequality’

Senator Waters, whose August petition to axe the tampon tax also collected more than 100,000 signatures, said the Government was still not doing enough to address gender inequality.

“There was no mention of the tampon tax in the COAG communique last week, showing the Coalition Government is failing to work to address this issue of blatant gender inequality,” she said.

When contacted by the ABC, the Federal Treasury said the GST on tampons was “a matter for the states and territories to comment on”.

Despite their sympathies, however, it seems the state governments — specifically Western Australia and New South Wales — are leading the push to keep the tax in place.

WA Treasurer Mike Nahan, who opposed removing the GST from feminine hygiene products at the August meeting, said the ongoing debate on the matter highlighted the complexity of the tax.

“The GST treatment of goods and services is not dependent upon whether they are considered to be essential or not, with a number of everyday items subject to GST, including electricity and gas services, baby nappies, toilet paper and toothbrushes,” Dr Nahan told the ABC.
“The nuances in the application of GST can appear confusing and unfair, and are often caused by the extent of exemptions in the GST base.

“Minimising exemptions from the GST and ensuring that it applies to as broad a base as possible helps to keep the GST rate lower than it would otherwise be.”

Dr Nahan said the GST was intended to be a broad-based consumption tax, with revenue distributed to the states as part of a wider range of reforms.

“Western Australia considers broader reform of the GST distribution process… to be our main priority,” he said.

When contacted by the ABC, NSW Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian reiterated a statement she made in August in which she opposed abolishing the tampon tax.

“Whilst I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I don’t support it,” Ms Berejiklian said.

“We can’t tinker with the GST with one-offs.

“We need to address these issues holistically.”

Axing the tax around the world

Activist groups around the world have staged numerous campaigns over the years calling on governments to “axe the tax” on tampons, which in many countries are considered non-essential or luxury items.

Women wearing white pants gathered outside London’s Palace of Westminster in November to “free-bleed” in protest of the European Union’s 5 per cent “luxury tax” on tampons.

“People are so quick to tell people that the tampon tax is something we shouldn’t be upset about … But then they get upset when I show them the reality of the necessity of sanitary items,” protester Charlie Edge wrote on Facebook.

“Maybe bleeding on their doorstep will get the Tories to do something about this?”

Canada removed the GST on sanitary napkins, sanitary belts and menstrual cups in July after several online petitions calling for an end to the tax amassed thousands of signatures.

“This is a victory for all women. It shows what a group of determined women and citizens can do,” said New Democratic Party MP Irene Mathyssen, who sponsored a private member’s bill on the matter.

“The women who made this an issue, their voices have finally been heard.”

Waleed Aly: What Is He Good For?

Waleed Aly is at best dangerous, at worst nefarious.

It really depends on the kind of Muslim he is.

On the one hand, he really is the lukewarm, Westernised Muslim that he makes himself out to be, somehow endeared to trendy leftists who espouse a worldview perfectly antithetical to every historical instance of Islam, and he is consequently useless as a genuine interpreter of Islamic doctrine and action in the world, having been conformed to image of the West.

On the other hand, he knows fully well that he is lying about the real nature of Islam, being a faithful adherent, and his prominent position in the Australian media as the go to spokesperson for all matters Islamic is all part of the Taqiyyan act to facilitate the establishment of Islam’s beachhead in Australia.

Tough to say but it’s all much of a muchness, meaning either or achieves the same end result: the perpetuation of lies and misinformation unto a distinctly Islamic, freedom-less future.

Andrew Bolt calls Aly out yet again, exposing his foolishness for what it is:

I WAS wondering how Waleed Aly would spin the Paris massacre.
Last night on The Project, Aly:

– suggested it wasn’t actually the work of the Islamic State, even though the Islamic State has taken responsibility and France has retaliated by attacking Islamic State targets in Syria;
– claimed it was some kind of self-motivated “DIY” terrorism, even though the attack was extensive, clearly well-planned and well-supplied, involving at least eight heavily armed terrorists from at least three countries, with one terrorist apparently arriving in Europe as a “Syrian refugee” just last month;

– claimed the Islamic State was actually “weak”, even though this “weak” terrorist outfit has in the past month killed 129 people in France, 224 people in a Russian jet in Egypt and 44 people in bombings in Beirut;

– warned against fighting the Islamic State in Syria on the grounds we’d been falsely told that destroying al Qaeda would “end” terrorism – a claim no leader anywhere actually made, and one that ignores the inability of al Qaeda to repeat its “success” of September 11 since the invasion of Afghanistan;

– gave not one single proposal for actually fighting the Islamic State or reducing the terrorism threat other than a fatuous call to “unite”, even though he is a lecturer at Monash University’s terrorism centre.

Worse, though, Aly in his editorial singled out just one Australian by name – and picture – for criticism.

No, it wasn’t a Muslim hate preacher like Sheik Wahwah.

It wasn’t the evasive Grand Mufti, who yesterday actually used the France terrorism to demand the West treat Muslims better.
It wasn’t any of the Muslims who have joined or recruited for the Islamic State or shot or stabbed Australians here.

It wasn’t any of the 21 Muslims jailed here for terrorism offences.

No, the one Australian he attacked was Pauline Hanson, a non-Muslim who has warned against the threat of jihadism.

That is disgraceful.

That is evasive.

That is scapegoating.

Pauline Hanson does not threaten to kill anyone.

She does not espouse the creed of those who do.

True, Aly this time did mention Islam, which he refused to do in some past attempts to explain some Islamist terrorist attack.

But he did not give some important context in giving his bizarre take on the Paris atrocity.

First, he is a Muslim and was spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria at a time that it had voted to make the extremist Sheik Hilali the Mufti of Australia.

He could be seen to have an agenda.

Second, just last year he falsely claimed the Islamic State represented no great threat to us:

What seems to underlie all of this is that ISIS represents a serious threat to Australia. Can you give us an indication of precisely the scope of that threat and the mechanism, can you describe its precise terms? Because it’s not immediately clear when you consider this is a movement on the other side of the world that seems to be importing people rather than exporting them.

Since then, an Islamic State supporter staged the deadly Martin Place siege.

Another Islamic State supporter stabbed two police in Melbourne.

A teenager in contact with the Islamic State shot police accountant Curtis Cheng.

The Paris terrorists, linked to the Islamic State, shot an Australian teenager.

I believe Channel 10 must question whether Aly should be the station’s main explainer of Islamist terrorism.

Mind you, I am the bad guy.

The media Left on Twitter is loving Aly’s take.

Anything that suggests that we can fight the Islamic State with a few hugs and hashtags, plus a big bucket of sand in which to bury our heads, is just what they want to hear.

The West Cannot Understand Islam

Not because it’s unable to but rather because it refuses to.

Mark Durie offers the words that every Western needs to read:

LEADING commentator Janet Daley’s article in Saturday’s Telegraph ‘The West is at war with a death cult’ stands for everything that is woeful about European elites’ response to Islamic jihad. 

It is a triumph of religious illiteracy.

The jihadist enemy, she asserts, is utterly unintelligible, so beyond encompassing in ‘coherent, systematic thought’ that no vocabulary can describe it: ‘This is just insanity’, she writes.

Because the enemy is ‘hysterical’, lacking ‘rational demands’, ‘negotiable limits,’ or ‘intelligible objectives’ Daley claims it is pointless to subject its actions to any form of historical, social or theological analysis, for no-one should attempt to ‘impose logic on behaviour that is pathological’

Despite this, Daley then ventures to offer analysis of and explanations for ISIS’ actions, but in doing so she relies upon her own conceptual categories, not those of ISIS.

Her explanations therefore fall wide of the mark. 


Daley writes: ‘We face a violent and highly contagious madness that believes the killing of civilians is a moral act.’ 

Here she appeals to Western concepts of war, reflected, for example, in the Geneva Convention, which provides detailed principles for the ‘protection of civilian persons’. 

Yet the first step in understanding a cultural system alien to one’s own, is to describe it in its own terms.

ISIS does not subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Its actions and strategies are based upon medieval Islamic laws of jihad, which make no use of the modern Western concept of ‘civilian’. 

They do, however, refer to the category of disbelievers (mushrik or kafir).

ISIS believes that killing disbelievers is a moral act, in accordance, for example, with Sura 9:5 of the Qur’an, which states :‘Fight and kill the idolators (mushrik) wherever you find them’.

Not nihilism

Daley writes: ‘The enemy has stated explicitly that it does not revere life at all’ and ‘Civilians are not collateral damage in this campaign: their deaths are the whole point.’ She goes on to lament that the latest French attacks lack any purpose, but are ‘carried out for the sheer nihilistic thrill of it’.

The claim that ISIS does not ‘revere life’ seems to refer to any number of statements by Islamic radicals, including an ISIS militant who vowed to ‘fill the streets of Paris with dead bodies’, and boasted that ISIS ‘loves death like you love life’ (see here). This is a theological reference to a series of verses in the Qur’an in which Jews are criticised for desiring life (Sura 2:94-96, 62:6-8). According to the Qur’an, loving life is a characteristic of infidels (Sura 3:14; 14:3; 75:20; 76:27) because it causes them to disregard the importance of the next life. The taunt much used by jihadis, ‘We love death like you love life’, implies that jihadis are bound for paradise while their enemies are hell-bound. 

The point of these statements is that Muslims are willing to fight to the death, while their infidel enemies will turn back in battle. This is not about reverence for life, but about who has the will to win.
This has nothing to do with nihilism, which is a belief that there are no values, nothing to be loyal to, and no purpose in living. In fact ISIS fighters have strong and clear loyalties and values, alien though they may be to those of Europe.

Daley’s claim that the deaths are ‘the whole point’ is also mistaken. While it is true that the jihadis consider killing infidels a meritorious act, potentially earning the killer a place in paradise (see here), and they consider being killed in battle against infidels a ticket to paradise, in fact the killings do serve a strategic purpose. This is to make infidels afraid, and thereby to weaken their will to resist Islamic dominance.

This strategy is commended by the Qur’an, for example in Sura 8:12, ‘I shall cast dread into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above (their) necks and strike (off) all their fingers!’, as well as by the successful example of Muhammad in fighting the Jews of Medina, referred to in Sura 33:26-27, ‘He brought down from their fortifications those of the People of the Book who supported them, and cast dread into their hearts. You killed a group (of them), and took captive (another) group. And he caused you to inherit their land, their homes, and their wealth, and a land you had not set foot on.’ A similar passage is Sura 59:2, which ISIS has in fact been quoting in its celebrations of the Paris carnage.

It may seem to Daley that ISIS’ often-stated intention of defeating the West is fanciful, but the point is to understand ISIS, and as far as it is concerned, these deadly attacks are instrumental in weakening the will of infidels and hastening eventual victory.
Not pointless

Daley wonders what possible point these attacks could serve. She speculates: ‘… what is the alternative that is being demanded? Sharia law? The subjection of women? An end to liberal democracy? Are any of these things even within the bounds of consideration? What could be accomplished by national self-doubt or criticism at this point, when there is not even a reasonable basis for discussion with the enemy?’ It is hardly a secret that the ultimate goal of ISIS is to bring non-Muslims everywhere to convert to Islam or live under an Islamic caliphate as dhimmis. Sharia law and the subjection of women are part and parcel of this. 

It is odd that Daley laments having no reasonable basis for negotiating with the enemy. ISIS is not playing by a Western-style negotiating rule book. It is following Muhammad’s instructions to his followers to offer three choices to infidels: conversion, surrender, or the sword. Bin Ladin has explained that the West’s rejection of this framework is the whole reason for its conflict with what he calls ‘the authority of Islam’:

‘Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword, for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (The Al Qaeda Reader)

It may seem unimaginable to European elites that ISIS is fighting for the goal of the surrender or conversion of Europe, but ISIS is thinking in time frames which extend to centuries, and their forebears conquered vast territories using such tactics. A final act of conquest can be preceeded by decades, or even centuries, of military raids. 

While killing is currently the main mode of ISIS’ attacks inside the West, if they could they would use other tactics as well, such as taking booty and slaves or destroying infrastructure, as they have been doing in Syria and Iraq.


Daley claims it is pointless to argue with people who have no reasonable grievances, for ‘the French people did not deserve this, just as Americans did not deserve 9/11’. However the important question is how ISIS sees its own motivations. Their ideology teaches them that infidels deserve death, simply by virtue of their unbelief. This has nothing to do with France’s history of colonialism or its treatment of Muslim minorities. ISIS needed no appeal to grievances to justify killing and enslaving Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, so why should they view the people of France any differently? Their objection to Europeans is that they are not Muslims, and their objection to European states is that they do not implement sharia law.


It is irresponsible and dangerous to claim that a tenacious enemy is insane and incomprehensible. To refuse to acknowledge the ideology of ISIS, and to deny its relevance is tantamount to a death-wish.

Like so many other revivalist Islamic groups, ISIS believes that it will be successful if it stays faithful to its divinely-mandated goals and tactics. It believes the nations of Europe are morally corrupt, weak infidels who love life too much to fight a battle to the death with stern Muslim soldiers who have set their hearts on paradise. It believes Europe stands on the wrong side of history. 

To combat this ideology it is necessary for Europe to prove ISIS wrong on all counts. It must show strength, not weakness. It must have confidence in its cultural and spiritual identity. It must be willing to fight for its survival. It must show that it believes in itself enough to fight for its future. It must defend its borders. It must act like someone who intends to win an interminably long war against an implacable foe.

There is a great deal Europe could have done to avert this catastrophe. It could, long ago, have challenged the Islamic view of history which idolised jihad and its intended outcome, the dhimma. It could have demanded that Islam renounce its love affair with conquest and dominance. It could have encouraged Muslims to follow a path of self-criticism leading to peace. This lost opportunity is what Bat Ye’or referred to in a prescient 1993 interview as the ‘relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism’.

Instead the elites of Europe embarked on decades of religiously illiterate appeasement and denialism.

There is still much that European states could do to defeat ISIS. They could, for example, inflict catastrophic military failure upon it as a powerful counter-argument to its theology of success. This will not deliver decisive, final victory against jihadism, but it will make the supremacist claims of ISIS less credible and hurt its recruitment. Islam’s laws of war allow Muslims to suspend their battle with infidels temporarily if there is no immediate prospect of victory and the risks to their cause are too great.

Europe also needs to act to suppress incitement of jihadi ideology by its clients, including the anti-Israeli jihadism of the Palestinian Authority. It must put more pressure on the militarily vulnerable Gulf states to stop funding Islamic radicalism throughout the Middle East and exporting jihad-revering versions of Islamic theology throughout the whole world.

One hope for Europe is that Islamic populations will get tired of the doctrine of jihad and all its bitter fruits. There are some signs that this is already happening, and many of the Muslims who are now seeking asylum in their hundreds of thousands will have come to this conclusion. However it seems likely that Muslim communities now established within Europe will be the last to reconsider their dogmas and their take on history, because they have not had to suffer first-hard the harsh realities of life under Islamic dystopias such as the ISIS ‘caliphate’ or Iran’s Islamic Revolution. A 2014 opinion poll found that among French 18-24 year olds, the Islamic State had an approval rating of 27%, which must include the overwhelming majority of young French Muslim men. For Europe, the challenge from within will be more enduring and intractable than the challenge from without.

Nevertheless, European states could still do much on their own turf. They could ban Saudi and other Middle Eastern funding to Islamic organisations, including mosques. They could stop appeasing Islamists in their midst. They could, even at this late hour, demand that the large and rapidly growing Muslim communities now well-established across Europe engage in constructive self-criticism of their religion, for the sake of peace.

Hard Truths For Immigration Crisis Deniers

The delusional and dangerous ideology of the Left (cultural Marxism) is always exposed sooner or later.

The most recent terrorist attacks by Muslims in Paris has exposed those in denial about the dangers of multiculturalism, immigration, and the refugee push into Europe.

Daniel Greenfield’s recent article helps drive it home for those still baffled as to why Muslims keep killing non-Muslim Europeans:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Last month, French President Francois Hollande ridiculed the idea that the massive numbers of Muslim migrants entering his country were any kind of threat.

“Those who argue that we are being invaded are manipulators and falsifiers, who do this only for political reasons, to scare,” the left-wing politician huffed.

And then the pudgy little Socialist had to be rapidly evacuated from France’s national soccer stadium after one of those refugees blew himself up trying to reach Monsieur le Président, and Merkel’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. 

Minister Steinmeier had urged rejecting “barriers, fences” when it came to the Muslim migrants, but it was a barrier and the security in front of it that kept one of his beloved refugees from reaching him.

The ordinary people who didn’t have and don’t have the security measures that protect Hollande and Steinemeier died in Paris, blown up and gunned down where they sat, lay and stood.

Before the man carrying a passport in the name of Ahmed Almohammad blew himself up at France’s national soccer stadium, he came on a boat from Turkey with hundreds of other refugees. He passed through Greece, Serbia and Croatia, along with countless other migrants, accompanied no doubt by journalists and human rights workers eager to document the plight of the “refugees”.

We may yet find him in the background of some news photo as the photographer focuses in for propaganda purposes on one of the few children among the horde of grim men of military age.

His passport may have been real. It may have been fake. No one was likely to notice. The name on his passport was not on an Interpol warrant. And so he was allowed into the heart of Europe.

In Greece, overburdened local authorities don’t care. New migrants are allowed to fill out their own paperwork and are handed letters of transit that allow them access to Europe. An employee at a local registration center was quoted as saying, “We just have to trust what they write down.”

In September, at a joint press conference with Secretary of State John Kerry, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had called taking in migrants a “moral duty” and urged Americans to “increase the numbers you can take into your country”.

Now Germany is hunting for its own links to the Paris attacks. A few days earlier, Steinemeier had boasted that Germans were bending over backwards for the refugees and proving that, “Germany belongs not to the screamers and hatemongers.” But the man with all the guns and bombs in his car who has been taken into custody might disagree. So would the terror cells of Hamburg.

But don’t assume that Hollande or Steinmeier learned any lessons from the latest Muslim massacre.

In September, France’s President Hollande told the French that he had information that attacks against France had been planned from Syria and that planning for future air strikes against ISIS would begin.

In that same speech, he announced that France would be taking in 24,000 migrants.

Hollande knew ahead of time that this disaster was coming. He even prepared the response to it at the same time as he was welcoming some of the potential perpetrators into his country.

It wouldn’t be too surprising if he even had a speech pre-written and ready to go for just such an attack.

Even as Hollande was denouncing “manipulators and falsifiers” for trying to “scare” the French, he had a very good idea of just how much there was to be scared of.  

The President of France had looked his nation in the eye and lied to them about the invasion.

Monsieur le Président probably didn’t expect to be this close to the killing when it happened. Neither did Foreign Minister Steinmeier. It’s the Jews and Poles in Marseille or the people in Calais who happen to be a little too close to the New Jungle camp that were meant to be the sacrifices of their compassion.

Unfortunately for Hollande and Steinmeier, the Islamic State didn’t get the memo. Unfortunately for us, their only real response to the crisis they caused will be to try to globalize it even further.

Back then Hollande and Merkel were demanding a “permanent mandatory system” for redistributing Muslim migrants across Europe. The G20 meeting features an alleged draft resolution calling it a global problem in an attempt to redistribute the migrants not just around Europe, but around the world.

Germany and France turned the Muslim migrant crisis into a European problem. Now they want to repeat the butchery in Paris around the world. 

The man calling himself Ahmed Almohammad had been a hot potato that every country along the route was happy to pass on to the next. Greece, Croatia and Serbia just wanted the huge influx of invaders to move on. In Germany and France, the emphasis is not on security, but on resettlement. 

No one is interested in security. And security is not a realistic option.

Greece doesn’t have the money, resources or infrastructure to screen the migrant horde. Frontex is undermanned and its employees, in European fashion, work until 4 PM, at which point the refugees just write whatever they want and get handed letters of transit by Greek officials that want them gone.

The Balkan countries are not any better equipped to manage the invasion than Greece. And the European countries that actually want the migrants aren’t interested in checking their papers, but in signing them up for as many social services as possible.

That’s not just true of Europe. It’s equally true of the United States.

Any talk of vetting is nothing more than plausible deniability. Unless a terrorist is already in our database, vetting him is a lost cause. Our system couldn’t handle the World Trade Center bombers or the 9/11 hijackers and they came from functioning countries that weren’t in the middle of a civil war.

We are not going to be able to vet tens of thousands of people who claim they come from Syria, who have fake passports or who plead that they lost their passports at sea, whose names can be rendered in enough ways to give even a linguist a headache and who will get access to the United States long enough for them to disappear even if we did eventually turn up something on them.

And we’re not supposed to vet them.

Despite the rhetoric, France and Germany are less interested in fighting ISIS than in getting the United States and the rest of the world to take more Muslim migrants. Instead of having ISIS in every city in Europe, they seem determined to make sure that it is in every city in the world instead.

ISIS may have carried out the brutal massacres in Paris, but Hollande, Merkel and the other friends of the refugees helped make it happen. And they want to help make it happen around the world.

The migrant crisis is an invasion. The bodies in Paris could just as easily have been stacked up in any country that was foolish and feckless enough to open the door to ISIS by taking in “refugees”. 

If Obama and Kerry succeed in their plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian migrants to America, the next brutal massacre might not happen in Paris. It might happen in one of our cities instead.

Islamic Terrorism In France: Moroccan Muslim Shoots People On Train As U.S. Servicemen Overpower Him

The way the mainstream media report this, you wouldn’t know why someone would ever do this. This is a good summary of what they have to say:

Key points

  • Three injured: a US serviceman, a Briton, and a French actor
  • Motive behind the shooting still unknown
  • Heavily armed gunman known to police

This is about as dishonest as it gets, to claim that the motive is unknown.

Consider this report of the events and then we will put this complex puzzle of mystery and intrigue together, attempting to do what no mainstream media outlet seems capable of.

A young Moroccan armed with a Kalashnikov and a knife was subdued by three Americans on a high-speed train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris Friday as he was apparently preparing to open fire on passengers.

Air Force serviceman Spencer Stone remained hospitalized Saturday after being stabbed in the attack Friday night as the train rolled through Belgium, though the Pentagon said the injury was not life-threatening.

A dual French-American citizen was also wounded as he was hit by chance by a gunshot on the train, which eventually stopped in Arras in northern France, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.

Cazeneuve, speaking to reporters in Paris on Saturday, said that the suspect may be a 26-year-old Moroccan flagged by Spanish authorities last year for links to Islamic radical movements, but the identity has not been 100 percent confirmed.

An official linked to Spain’s anti-terrorism unit said the suspect lived in Spain until 2014, then moved to France, travelled to Syria, and then returned to France. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be identified by name.

The was arrested after the train stopped in Arras, 115 miles north of Paris, Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henri Brandet said on French television BFM.

Anthony Sadler, a senior at Sacramento State University, was traveling with childhood friends Stone, of Carmichael, California, and Alek Skarlatos, a National Guardsman from Roseburg, Ore., when they heard a gunshot and breaking glass. Sadler told The Associated Press that they saw a train employee sprint down the aisle followed by a gunman with an automatic rifle.

“As he was cocking it to shoot it, Alek just yells, ‘Spencer, go!’ And Spencer runs down the aisle,” Sadler said. “Spencer makes first contact, he tackles the guy, Alek wrestles the gun away from him, and the gunman pulls out a boxcutter and slices Spencer a few times. And the three of us beat him until he was unconscious.”

British passenger Chris Norman told French television that he helped tie the gunman up. Stone then quickly turned to help another passenger who had been wounded in the throat, stopping his bleeding until paramedics came, Sadler said.

Throughout the brief but terrifying episode, Sadler said, “The gunman never said a word.”

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, who arrived on the scene late Friday, denounced the “barbaric act.” He praised the “two deserving passengers” for their “great bravery and composure,” the newspaper said.

A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed that one U.S. military member was injured in the incident. The Pentagon described the injury as “not life-threatening.”

President Obama, updated on the attack Friday evening, “expressed his profound gratitude for the courage and quick thinking of several passengers, including U.S. service members, who selflessly subdued the attacker,” a White House official said. “It is clear that their heroic actions may have prevented a far worse tragedy.”

The population of Morocco is literally 99.9% Muslim so that’s the case solved!

This was an Islamic terrorist attack.

Islamic Terorism in France: Planned Beheading Of Military Personnel Foiled, Investigation Into Chemical Plant Explosion

France has had a busy year with Islamic attacks becoming a normal expectation of daily life. This is to be expected in a nation where the Muslim population is approaching 10% of the total.

Now, a planned beheading of military personnel has been foiled while question marks surround the discovery of explosive devices after a chemical plant explosion near Marseille, a city with one of the largest Muslim populations in France.

France has foiled a plan to attack the country’s military, the interior minister said, as a source close to the investigation said the suspects had been planning a beheading.

Interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve told reporters that four accused who had been planning “a terrorist act against French military facilities” were in custody of the country’s intelligence services, the DGSI.

Aged 16 to 23, and including a former member of the navy, they were arrested at dawn in different parts of the country, the minister said.

This week, we stopped terrorist attacks which could have taken place.

The news of the arrests followed a statement from French president Francois Hollande, who said attacks had been thwarted in recent days.

“This week, we stopped terrorist attacks which could have taken place,” Mr Hollande said on a visit to the coastal city of Marseille.

A source close to the investigation into the thwarted attack, who asked to remain anonymous, said the four people arrested had been planning to film the decapitation of a member of the military.

One of four suspects, who was identified as the mastermind, had been planning to travel to jihadist-controlled areas of war-torn Syria, Mr Cazeneuve said.

He said their leader was in contact with known French jihadists who are currently in prison.

Mr Cazeneuve said no link had been established between the foiled assault and two blasts on Tuesday at a petrochemical plant near Marseille.

Two blasts at a petrochemical plant in France appear to have been “criminal acts”, the country’s parliament has been told.

“There is a probe underway. The first indications show that we are dealing with a criminal act, but no motive has been established,” Mr Cazeneuve told the lower house.

Explosive devices found at plant

Officials discovered devices thought to have started the twin explosions at the plant in the small town of Berre-l’Etang near Marseille in the early hours of Tuesday, which sparked huge fires.

No one was hurt in the incident.

Two tanks full of petrol and naphtha — a flammable liquid distilled from petroleum — caught fire after the blasts and a thick cloud of black smoke was visible several kilometres away.

Prosecutors said an explosive device was found in a third tank, but had failed to trigger a major blast.

France remains on edge after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January where a trio of gunmen killed a total of 17 people starting with a massacre at the satirical magazine.

And last month, a man with suspected links to the Islamic State group spiked his boss’s severed head onto the fence of a United States-owned gas factory.

Paris tightened security around sensitive sites such as factories, calling for “maximum vigilance”.

But experts warned it was extremely difficult to defend against attacks on such sensitive sites.

“There is no such thing as zero risk,” Philippe Prudhon, a technical expert at the UIC union of chemical industries, said.

“If someone really wants to cause harm, it will be difficult to stop him or her.

“We have to realise that we have been in a fundamentally different environment for the past three years.”

How long can we keep pretending that Islam is “the religion of peace” when the results continually speak otherwise?

Islamic Terrorism In Lyon, France: Beheading, Plot To Blow Up Chemical Factory

Another day in France, another Islamic terror attack.

Will police discover a motive or will it forever remain a mystery wrapped in enigmatic puzzle?

A man suspected of carrying out an attack on a factory near Lyon in France in which a man was found decapitated continues to be questioned by police.

Yassin Salhi, 35, caused an explosion by ramming his vehicle into an area containing flammable liquids, prosecutors say.

His boss, the owner of a delivery firm, was found beheaded alongside flags with Arabic inscriptions.

President Francois Hollande has held a security meeting with ministers.

The home of the suspect, who was known to police, has been searched

Prime Minister Manuel Valls cut short his visit to South America to return to France which is on its highest state of alert after the attack in the small town of Saint-Quentin-Fallavier some 40km (25 miles) from Lyon.

Officials and residents of Saint-Quentin-Fallavier gathered outside the town hall on Saturday morning to observe a minute’s silence.

Factory railings

Mr Salhi was arrested at the Air Products factory on Friday morning.

Later, anti-terror police searched the apartment of Mr Salhi, a father-of-three, in the Moines neighbourhood of the town.

They took his wife and sister into custody. Another man was arrested but released without charge.

Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre, spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutor’s office, has said police have so far not found any motive or possible foreign connection, and that Mr Salhi is not speaking to investigators.

Under French anti-terrorism laws, suspects can be held for up to four days before either being released or charged.

Yassin Salhi had been investigated in the past about his alleged links with Islamist militants.

It is alleged he was waved through the gates of the factory because he was a regular delivery driver.

Police and firefighters later found a half-destroyed car which had been rammed into canisters containing chemicals and a man trying to ignite more.

Mr Salhi’s boss, a 54-year-old man whose name has not been released by police, was found beheaded at the scene.

His head had been placed on the factory railings. It is not clear when he died.

‘Unspeakable act’

Speaking after the attack, President Hollande said: “We have no doubt that the attack was to blow up the building. It bears the hallmarks of a terrorist attack.”

Wife of suspect Yassin Salhi told radio station Europe 1: “On the news it said a ‘terrorist act’ but it’s not possible”

He said the attack would remind people of the attacks in and around Paris in January that killed 17 people.

“We all remember what happened before in our country. There is therefore a lot of emotion,” he said.

US-owned Air Products makes gases and chemicals and has employees in 50 countries around the world.

Chief Executive Seifi Ghasemi said: “I believe I speak for all of our Air Products family around the world in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family of the victim of this unspeakable act.

“My heart also goes out to the people who work at the site and their families.”

While I document mainstream Islamic terrorism as a wake up call to the West, the appalling reality is that these attacks happen every day in the Middle East.

Islam has currently conquered one quarter of the earths land surface – take some time in front of a map and think about the power and reach of this ideology.

How long before Islam’s numbers really sink Europe? I assure you, it’s already well on the way.

Don’t let anyone fool you: the problem in Islam is Islam itself.

How many Muslims need to die under Islam, let alone Westerners, before people start calling a spade ‘a spade’?

Jesus Christ is the hope of all people and many Muslims embrace him with each passing day. The violent problem of Islam is solved in Christ alone.