Open borders = terrorist acts

Via Reuters:

BOULDER, Colorado, June 1 (Reuters) - Eight people were injured on Sunday when a 45-year-old man yelled "Free Palestine" and threw incendiary devices into a crowd in Boulder, Colorado where a demonstration to remember the Israeli hostages who remain in Gaza was taking place, authorities said.

Four women and four men between 52 and 88 years old were transported to hospitals, Boulder police said. Authorities had earlier put the count of the injured at six and said at least one of them was in a critical condition.

So who was this terrorist? An illegal immigrant.

 

Iranians at the southern border? That checks

Iranians trying to illegally enter the United States through the open southern border, potentially (likely) with terrorism on their minds. That checks. Who knew that might happen? Well to start, president Trump, oh, and also pretty much everyone with common sense.

Toronto tragedy

Toronto is my home town, and this is really saddening.

It's been reported that the driver, in custody is known to police. It was a terror attack, even if the motive is not currently known.

If you can't win in the court of public opinion...blow something up?

President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. He won the election, he represents America in terms of foreign affairs. Some people just cannot handle those facts.  Their solution? Kill people (or try to kill people);

(CNN) An explosion Monday morning at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan is, in the words of Police Commissioner James O'Neill, a "terror-related incident."

The explosion happened on a walkway below ground near 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue. The suspect, Akayed Ullah, and three other people were injured.

...Recent Israeli actions in Gaza compelled Ullah to carry out the attack, a law enforcement source said. The suspect was upset, in his words, with the "incursion into Gaza," the source said, but did not elaborate on what incursion he may have been alluding to. Israel launched airstrikes this weekend against what it said were Hamas targets in Gaza after several rockets were fired out of Gaza towards Israel. This came amid widespread protests over President Trump's move to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Terrorism to promote peace.  If that's all you have got, you have no argument, and you are losing.  Clearly you do not support a peace process either if your solution to a position you do not like, is to respond with violence.

Violence and terrorism have always been the response of groups like Hezbollah, and the PLO and ISIS and even domestic terrorists. This is why they do not deserve a seat at the table because they are talking peace while acting and supporting violence.  Peace cannot ever be had when it is achieved entirely at the expense of one side's well-being.  If you can't compromise, you cannot negotiate peace in good faith.  Period.

However, while there will undoubtedly be violent responses to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, this isn't exactly one of those situations. Notice that CNN throws president Trump's move to recognize Jerusalem into the mix? The connection at this point, is spurious at best and deliberately misleading at worst. The rest of the CNN story regarding motivation, is clearly about Israel and Gaza. CNN is still agenda-molding their stories to suit their own narrative.

Hey, let's ban cars too

Not to be too glib, because a lot of leftitst would be thrilled to witness the disappearance of the automobile.  However, those who want to ban guns because guns kill people should take note - cars kill people too, often inadvertently, but increasingly, not always;

Several people have been injured after a car mounted the pavement and mowed down pedestrians outside the Natural History Museum in London this afternoon.

A man was pinned down by security guards and arrested by police in the heart of the capital's museum land in Kensington.

Hundreds of terrified tourists fled the scene as the black Toyota Prius - a registered minicab - careered into a sign before ultimately crashing into a crowd of as many as 10 people as it hit a silver car, according to witnesses.

Gun laws are extremely strict in the U.K. but they still have murders. They still have terrorism. Gun laws are not the answer. Maybe stricter penalties for murder and assault might work. Maybe it's something else. The point is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Otherwise while we are at it we should not only ban guns, we should also ban shovels, rakes, steak knives, camping (because grizzly bears), construction sites, fire and doctors who can't cure cancer.

Attention U.K. citizens, this is why you need to vote for Theresa May

More terror in London.  A stronger mandate for exiting the E.U. and giving Prime Minister Theresa May the strong backing to negotiate BREXIT forcefully and not leave the U.K. subject to any whims of the E.U. - especially on immigration and national security issues.

Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten - pro Trump?

This speaks for itself on both Brexit and Trump. Also on Islamic terrorism for that matter.

Here's your soup.

Sick of the left blaming guns for terrorism?  Here's your soup, via Left Coast Rebel:

" Banning AR-15s to prevent mass shooting is like banning Chevrolets to prevent drunk driving. "

The terrible Orlando massacre

I'll start by saying that I believe the shooting at the gay nightclub in Orlando was a horrific and terrible act of terror, regardless of the motivation behind it.  My heart goes out to families and friends who have lost loved ones in the senseless tragedy. It's terrible, sicken and truly sad whenever something like this happens.

Here are a couple of other thoughts on the situation.  Regardless of what I believe about differing lifestyles and morality, it is not my place to impose my beliefs on others, just as I would expect no one do the same to me. While I might as a Christian want to warn others about promiscuity etc. (and no, I'm not explicitly equating homosexuality with promiscuity) if I do so and they choose to ignore my advice or opinion, so be it. That is their prerogative.  Similarly, anyone who believes that they have a right or a mandate to impose a death sentence  on those who do not conform to their views (or perhaps impose Sharia law, or laws requiring churches to marry people whom they morally feel compelled not to do), is simply put, wrong.  They are wrong on every level. Murder is morally reprehensible.

A civilized society does require laws, but it requires the minimal amount possible in order to provide as much individual liberty as is feasible.  That is the society we have opted for in Western civilization.  The degree to which governments adhere to that varies and can be quite telling.  A civilized society does not require vigilante Wild West  style justice.

And on another note, some good is being ignored in this situation, probably because of who is behind it:

Chick Fil A has made national news for it’s owners’ stance on gay marriage. Anytime they do something even remotely non-PC, their supposed slip up goes viral. Hash tags pop up all over the place.

So why is that what they have done in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting hasn’t received a single mention on the mainstream new outlets?

It’s probably because people like New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio might have to eat crow instead of chicken. DeBlasio has said that Chick Fil A spreads a message of hate.

Not so yesterday. In a shocking move, the Orlando location at University and Rouse Road fired up its grills on Sunday. The chain is notorious for not being open, ever, on the first day of the week. Employees cooked up hundreds of their famous chicken sandwiches. They brewed dozens of gallons of sweet tea.Chick-fil-A-logo-vec

Then, instead of making a single dime, they crated the product of their labor to the One Blood donation center. The food and drinks were handed out, free of charge, to all the people who had lined up to donate blood.

A wonderful example of hating the sin and not the sinner, quite unlike the approach taken by  the shooter in this case.  And dare I say it, Chick-fil-A has chosen the Christian thing to do here. 

Did Bernie Sanders really just blame ISIS terrorism on global warming?

 Yes, yes he did. And this guy wants to be president.

But he gets a lot more wrong than just that.

“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.

Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.

Okay, I know you're old Bernie, but do you not recall that 9/11 and the World Trade Center bombing when Clinton was president and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc. all happened before the invasion of Iraq? And don't blame it on the first invasion because countless nations took part in that one, including many Arab nations.

How can someone be that old and still be so sophomoric?

But let me not gloss over the specious global warming link. He's saying that global warming is causing food and water shortages and the unrest that has led to the rise of these terrorist organizations is resulting from lack of food and water. This includes the oil rich countries of Saudi Arabia (for example) where much of this jihadi fundamentalism ferments.

Bernie - this is a radical religious based problem. Period. If you want to throw a progressive spin on it, you're not even doing that right! Try "the problem is religion" or the problem is that "these people cannot get proper education because they are so poor so we need to send them money take in more refugees." (By the way the latter one is racist because you're claiming they are not capable of growing themselves out of poverty).  François Hollande, president of France, is a socialist. He's saying France is going to wage a pitiless war. He may not have always gotten it, but he certainly does now. So you can be a socialist without being a head-in-the-sand fool on terrorism*.

Some on the left have argued that Sanders is actually helping Republicans (because he's supposedly too forward thinking). And there is some thought that he's not really in it to win it but rather to get his issues and views into the national zeitgeist for the future. Sanders saying things like global warming causes terrorism, certainly lends credence to the idea that he doesn't want to win.

*NOTE: For the record, I do not condone socialism.

History Repeating: Could the start of WWI instruct us now?

With president Hollande of France speaking in terms last night of a pitiless war, something far more aggressive than the tone taken by president Bush, is France on the brink of a War on Islamic jihad and ISIS in particular? With British Prime Minister stating that France's fight was their fight as well, and Obama (incorrectly) stating that this was an attack on all humanity (really, it's an attack on the West and Western values by another faction of humanity), is an alliance forming, and war inevitable? Are we past the point of no return?

What causes a war? Often the mirror of history looks at simple events first and later complexity is layered in.  The cause of World War I was supposedly an assassination, but the reality around it, and leading up to the events that triggered the war was far more nuanced (excuse the progressive word that dismisses black and white explanations, but in this case it may have been true).

How did WWI start?

The simplest answer is that the immediate cause was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the archduke of Austria-Hungary. His death at the hands of Gavrilo Princip – a Serbian nationalist with ties to the secretive military group known as the Black Hand – propelled the major European military powers towards war.

The events that led up to the assassination are significantly more complicated, but most scholars agree that the gradual emergence of a group of alliances between major powers was partly to blame for the descent into war.

By 1914, those alliances resulted in the six major powers of Europe coalescing into two broad groups: Britain, France and Russia formed the Triple Entente, while Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy comprised the Triple Alliance.

As these countries came to each other's aid after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, their declarations of war produced a domino effect.

Perhaps more important than the establishment of alliances is the fact that a singular event can have such a large ripple effect. Whether a war or terror is a good idea or not (and I believe it's simply a necessity at this point), what strikes me now is that this sure looks like history repeating. We would be wise to learn the lessons of history, if for no other reason than to understand the events that envelop us.

In Copenhagen, shots fired were at Western democracy

At a freedom of speech gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, early today this happened:

A debate over free speech in an age of terrorism took a dark turn in Copenhagen. A volley of gunfire ripped through a cafe where an artist from the 2007 controversy over drawings of Mohammed spoke. Early reports say Lars Vilks was not injured, but at least two others were...

The shots that were fired were not aimed at individuals. Nominally they were, but the bigger picture is a radical Muslim assault on free speech. All of these recent attacks are not attacks on Westerners, but an attack on our values. This was an attack on free speech. Liberty requires free speech. Free speech can be insulting. But free speech is such a fundamental western value that to attack it is to attack at the heart of Western civilization.

To not defend it forcefully and with everything at our disposable, is to show we do not believe in our civilization and that we do not believe in ourselves.

Al Qaida becoming the MySpace of terrorism?

In a bid to remain relevant, Al Qaida is claiming responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last week.

Al Qaida's fading prominence may have been the rationale behind the attacks moreso than the specifics about offense to the prophet Mohammed.

Like MySpace, Al Qaida we just don't care about you any more. There's a bigger threat and a broader issue to deal with. You are now part of the scenery of the problem, not the entire problem.

Empathize This!

Recently Hillary Clinton was giving a speech in which she proclaimed that you had to  empathize with your enemies. Today a bunch of Taliban radicals targeted a school in Pakistan in order to kill children.

How do you empathize with that? While you are pondering the answer,  here's a hint: you don't.

More thoughts on the Canadian terror situation

President Obama is still reluctant to call a terrorist a terrorist, because as we all know, he already solved the problem of terrorism when the U.S. military (NOT him) killed Osama Bin Laden.  Even when the terrorism happens in other countries, it's not terrorism.  Obama has removed the need for that word to exist in the English language.  Or any other language for that matter.  We should be cleaning up the world's dictionaries by now.

Yes, this was a single shooter incident in Canada.  Yes, he had significant problems before his conversion to Islam.  Clearly the conversion did nothing to help him with his issues, it simply directed them in a worse, more deadly direction.  He was converted and radicalized.  That does not happen in a day.  There is more to be uncovered there if someone decides to do more than just scratch the surface of this tragic event.

No, he was not connected to the man involved in the recent vehicular homicide incident in Quebec by a radical Islamist convert.  But this shooter was not acting alone.  More details will eventually come out.  I'm not sure if they will come out soon, but there is more to this angle of the story as well. Someone, somewhere is either lying or withholding information. I am certain of that.

There was an account on Anderson Cooper 360 two nights ago in which a phone interviewee said he saw someone similarly garbed near the scene who apparently fled. That is just one account of the incident that needs to be investigated.

The lock-down that took place was for an unusually long period of time for just one shooter who was dead within the first few minutes of events.  Police are still tracking others to be sure, even if it is not making the news cycle.

It seems like the story is being sanitized and whitewashed. Either for the purposes of uncovering accomplices (or a network) or else for the purposes of political expediency.

Shootout at Parliament Hill, Ottawa Canada.

Canada recently sent fighter jets over to Iraq to help in the fight against ISIS.  More recently a couple of Canadian soldiers were run over by a man with Jihadist sympathies and today, it looks like something similar happened today as one soldier was shot and two or three perpetrators were believed to be involved.

Canada has not been a big player in that theater in the past.  We have helped quite a bit in Afghanistan but not in Iraq.  This is not the first effort to target Canada or Canadians as part of the coalition fighting radical Islamists.  But it is new in the sense that it happened and wasn't foiled beforehand.

Heroine Malala Yousafzai was due to get a Canadian citizenship today from Prime Minister Harper.

The details will fill in over time, but the bigger picture suggests that Canada cannot consider itself free from risk if it is part of the effort to combat global terror.  Then again, it's not free from risk if it doesn't play a part either.

Here's an interesting thought - a shooter got into parliament, a guy got into the White House.  What's up with security?  It's seemingly all window dressing.

One final thought - CNN is reporting as if this were a lone gunman.  I fully expect that to change as more information comes out.  Specific information.

Droning On

While Kenya is the hotbed of the day with respect militant Islamic jihad, Pakistan is still a bigger deal, where Christians are being murdered because, they are Christian.  Suicide bombers have declared war on Christianity. 

The president doesn't care.  The drone attacks continue and the details of Christian deaths in Pakistan are startlingly underplayed, as Christians don't seem to matter if they aren't American.

The Guardian however, has taken note of it.

...Some of the congregation were in bare feet as they filed out of the Anglican church on Sunday morning straight into the blast zone of one of two suicide bombers from a Taliban faction that has vowed to kill non-Muslims until the US cancels its lethal drone strikes in the country.

A day later and a blood-soaked jumble of shoes still lies in a pile on the right-hand side of the tall wooden doors where female worshippers usually congregate.

According to a tally based on information from local officials, 85 people were killed and more than 100 injured, although one doctor who arrived at the scene moments after the blast believes that even more died but their bodies were recovered by relatives before they could be accounted for.

Whatever the number, it was Pakistan's worst attack on Christians, sparking impassioned, country-wide protests.

Christians are a tiny and politically weak minority in Muslim-majority Pakistan who suffer from prejudice and sporadic bouts of mob violence. But Sunday was the first time that bombs had been used to such deadly effect on worshippers.

This is genocide, just like in Syria, but the victims are a persecuted minority and they feel the root cause of the actions of their attackers are American drone attacks. They also have some harsh words for the West in general and the sentiment is not unjust.

"It's not safe for Christians in this country," said Mano Rumalshah, the bishop emeritus of Peshawar, who was standing in the courtyard, comforting sobbing parishioners who clasped his white robes.

"Everyone is ignoring the growing danger to Christians in Muslim-majority countries. The European countries don't give a damn about us."

Syria Later Boys.

Iranian copies Babe Ruth?

Now that Iran has threatened violent retaliation against U.S. citizens (including president Obama's family), is the president going to back down?  It wouldn't be the first time he has backed down with respect to Iran.  Back during Iran's Green Revolution, when people were being killed in the streets by government thugs, Obama blinked, several times. He also gulped audibly, I'm quite sure.  It didn't go unnoticed in Iran, where the leadership has clearly been emboldened by his inactions of the past.

In an unusually harsh statement, Iran has stepped up its game.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],” he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world].”

It could be bluster, or they honestly believe they can really hurt U.S. interests.  It seems like the former is the case though.  Otherwise, why go Babe Ruth and call the shot before undertaking terrorist activities?  The U.S. has shut down embassies in anticipation of activities based on intercepted communications.  Recently, in fact.  It wouldn't be much of a stretch to divert security forces to protect those mentioned as targets.  So it sure seems more like bluster.

 

What's a president to do?  It would not be surprising for Obama to blink again.  In fact handing the decisioning off to Congress, he has blinked already. In saying he didn't draw the red line  he was just echoing others, he blinked again.  Iranians probably realize this and in anticipation, have set themselves up to look like they've stared down the Great Satan.  It looks good domestically, it reinforces their hold on Syria and even if the U.S. does go ahead with plans to attack Syria, they probably feel in Iran that it gives them license to perpetrate all sorts of gruesome activities in the name of well, whatever.

 

Obama on the other hand isn't done blinking.  He seems genuinely intimidated by Iran.  Of course the geopolitics of an attack on Iran would be difficult.  Russia and China are adamantly against action. There is little appetite for action in the E.U. There won't be a lot of allies to lean on if the president were to take action.  And enabling Al Qaida by destabilizing a regime that they are currently invested in fighting makes the outcome far more likely to be a totalitarian extremist regime  and much less attractive and than a miraculous dawning of a pluralistic democracy in Syria.  Obama also has a problem with his left flank who expect him to be a peacenik president, at some point, eventually...

 

Obama will not take action on Syria. That's my prediction. He couldn't call the shot like Iran just did if he wanted to do it. He's flummoxed.

Fort Hood Terror Gunman Guilty of Murder (aka workplace violence)

Army Maj. Nidal Hasan has been found guilty of murder in the Fort Hood shoot deaths of 13.

CNN:

A military jury on Friday convicted Army Maj. Nidal Hasan of 13 counts of premeditated murder in a November 5, 2009, shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, making it possible for the death penalty to be considered as a punishment.

The jurors deliberated fewer than seven hours over two days to hand down a verdict against Hasan, who admitted to targeting soldiers he was set to deploy with to Afghanistan to protect the Taliban and its leaders. The shooting rampage occurred at a deployment processing center.

He admitted doing so to protect the Taliban. It begs the question; does the Obama administration still consider this an incidence of workplace violence?

Boston Marathon Bombing: Some Thoughts

Photo:  News.com.au

Yesterday a couple of bombs (IEDs) went off at the Boston Marathon.  I had a cousin running in that race for the first time in her life, after years of training. She made it to about the 34 kilometer mark and was stopped and put into lockdown in a church with a bunch of other runners in her immediate area.  The response from local authorities was effective and well done from what I hear.  My cousin, after a lengthy lockdown opted to leave the church and continue running to the finish area where her family was near.  They were also safe and she knew they were.  But she wanted to run and she wanted to get back to her family.  Ultimately she was reunited with her husband and children and able to run a full marathon plus, somehow extra distance. I watched the unfolding events on CNN and Fox (as well as Twitter and Hot Air) and followed her husband's updates on Facebook.  As I watched it all, a number of thoughts occurred to me.