In the wake of the deadly terror rampage in Paris on Friday night, journalists and political commentators have been speaking up about the French and European intelligence failures and the political correctness that imbues government opinions which together enabled such a complex series of terror attacks to be cooked up under the noses of international intelligence agencies.
Avi Issacharoff writes about France’s intelligence failure and Europe’s uphill battle in fighting ISIS:
Islamic State has now managed to carry out terror attacks in three locations in less than two weeks — the Sinai (where it brought down a Russian passenger plane), Beirut (where it carried out twin bombings in a Hezbollah neighborhood) and now Paris.
In its claim of responsibility for the Paris bloodbath, Islamic State set out further intended targets: Rome, London and Washington DC. These may be empty threats. Not because IS is incapable of action. Rather because, as the Paris carnage shows, when Islamic State does attack, it doesn’t talk a lot about it beforehand.
It may be that the sheer scale and horror of the Paris attacks will prompt a certain awakening in Western European states, which have been failing in the battle against Islamic State. Establishing the kind of terror network required for Friday night’s multiple coordinated attacks did not happen overnight. That there were at least eight terrorists involved, with weapons and explosives and suicide belts, acting in concert, points to a stark failure by Western intelligence, which ought to have been able to get wind of the planned onslaught. First reports indicate that at least one of terrorists was on a French intelligence watch list.
Nevertheless, the fact is that the European intelligence community is facing an almost impossible task. The failure was not only this weekend, but in the many years past. Parts of Europe have, over the decades, been allowed to become entirely Muslim areas, utterly neglected by the intelligence services — and neglected economically and socially. Areas like these provide recruits to the ranks of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. And some of these recruits, it would seem, are then ordered back to Europe, to set up sleeper cells and await the call for terrorist action.
That may turn out to be what happened Friday night in Paris.
His opinions are closely echoed by Douglas Murray who asserts that Europe must confront the dangers of mass immigration:
Yet all the time – and even after the terrorist attacks in Paris in January – President Hollande, like Chancellor Merkel, pretends that the main problem is nativist bigotry. And of course while talking about an abstract ‘radicalism’ which might afflict anyone at any time, Hollande and Merkel have poured fuel onto Europe’s fire by arguing for an effectively borderless continent.
Where are those mass immigration advocates this morning? Where are the people who pretend that an immigrant from a Muslim background and an immigrant of Christian background are equally likely to integrate into France?
Judith Bergman at the Gatestone Institute caustically asks “How can anyone be shocked” by the Paris attacks:
Although the writing has literally been on the wall in blood for the past decade and a half, the West, especially Europe, continues to be taken aback every time a new terror attack occurs, as if each one were the first.
After 9/11 in the United States; the 2004 Madrid train bombings, which killed nearly 200 and wounded 2000, and the 2005 attacks on London’s transit system where 56 people were killed and 700 wounded, world leaders have no conceivable excuse left to be shocked and surprised at mass terrorism occurring in the midst of Western capitals.
Already in February, it was reported in several European newspapers, among them the British Daily Telegraph, that ISIS threatened Europe with an influx of 500,000 migrants, which would include ISIS operatives hiding among them, to create chaos on the continent.
Astoundingly, European leaders nevertheless allowed the current wave of migrants to flood into their countries. Many of these migrants hide underground, often in the suburbs with these “parallel societies;” with European authorities unable to account for their whereabouts.
In September, a Syrian ISIS smuggler told the British daily, The Express, that more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen had been smuggled into Western nations, and were “ready” across the European Union. He also said that the undercover infiltration was the beginning of a larger plot to carry out attacks in the West, allegedly in retaliation for the US-led coalition airstrikes against ISIS.
The terrorist attacks in Paris are the direct and deplorable result of political cowardice and inertia. Politicians are unable or unwilling to name the problems by their rightful name. The politicians have been shying away from engaging with the enormous security and social problems that Muslim immigration into Europe and the West has caused and continues to cause.
In the face of the Islamic terrorism that the West has been experiencing for more than a decade. The current generation of European political leaders has exhibited an irresponsibility and lack of leadership that is almost infantile by allowing unchecked Muslim immigration into Europe, with its free, open borders. The question is whether the terrorist attacks in Paris will finally amount to a wake-up call for the West’s political establishment.
It would be nice to think that the answer to Bergman’s question would be a resounding “Yes!” but sadly, I have my doubts. I don’t know whether Europe’s political leaders, and their opposition parties too, have the intestinal fortitude needed to reverse the current flood of refugees – so many of whom are neither Syrian nor refugees.
Supporting my view that they don’t “get it”:
Oh yes there is!
Oh no he didn’t!
But – a glimmer of common sense:
Already back in September Denis Prager wrote about the fatal mistake that Europe is making in taking in so many hostile refugees:
His focus is that from a Jewish point of view, the parallels to the Holocaust “are far from precise.”
In particular, he points out that in Nazi-occupied Europe every Jew “was targeted for death.” In Syria, the Christians and Yazidis are the targets, and Prager calls on Europe to admit all from those two groups who want in.
And among other things, he notes that “the vast majority of the Jews of Germany and many other European countries were assimilated citizens of their respective countries, who thoroughly embraced western culture and values. In contrast, most of the Muslims of the Middle East — and the largely Muslim population (from non-Arab countries) already in Europe — hold values that are not merely different from, but opposed to, those of Europe.”
In the U.K., France and Sweden, Prager argues at RealClearPolitics.com, many Muslims have sequestered themselves and refused to integrate. And their children, “the ones born and raised in European [countries,] are usually the most radical and anti-western.”
Maybe the Europeans will now wake up, but is it too late? What can they do about the immigrants that are already in place? How will they integrate them? The answers remain to be seen.
Another angle to the terror threat is addressed in a second article by Douglas Murray, this time in the Spectator, where he focuses the politically-incorrect question of the relation of Islam to terrorism:
In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. It was what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris in January. And it is all that most politicians will be able to come out with again after the latest atrocities in Paris.
All these leaders are wrong. In private, they and their senior advisers often concede that they are telling a lie. The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ‘noble lie’, provoked by a fear that we — the general public — are a lynch mob in waiting. ‘Noble’ or not, this lie is a mistake. First, because the general public do not rely on politicians for their information and can perfectly well read articles and books about Islam for themselves. Secondly, because the lie helps no one understand the threat we face. Thirdly, because it takes any heat off Muslims to deal with the bad traditions in their own religion. …
…. To claim that people who punish people by killing them for blaspheming Islam while shouting ‘Allah is greatest’ has ‘nothing to do with Islam’ is madness. Because the violence of the Islamists is, truthfully, only to do with Islam: the worst version of Islam, certainly, but Islam nonetheless.
We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.
Indeed, it is worth noting Elder of Ziyon’s simple but terrifying answer to the question in this magazine cover which asks “Why do they hate us?”:
Dar al-Harab is a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis. It is unclean by definition, and will not become clean until annexed to the House of Peace. Its denizens are either to be converted, killed or, if people of the book, tolerated as long as they pay the jizya.
And those against them must be subjugated or killed. That war is one of the major definitions of jihad.
It is really that simple. They try to kill us because they are commanded to wage war on us until every country becomes Muslim.
Again, until this simple truism is internalised by the West’s leaders and nations, the war will continue.
One last commentary relating to the Paris attacks, by Paul M at Harry’s Place, pertinently compares the world’s reactions to the Paris attacks to their reactions to Israel’s attacks and reminds us “What will not be said“:
The BBC, Time and CNN will not lean on the tired, dishonest euphemism “militant”. They might even find that this is a time when “terrorist” is appropriate**, though so far they’re all going with “attacker”, which at least implies actual aggression.
Neither Ban Ki-moon nor the leaders of Europe and America will be calling for “all sides to show restraint”, nor will they want to discuss a cycle of violence. No one is going to accuse France of a disproportionate response (even though M. Hollande within hours declared a state of emergency, sealed the borders and swore to respond “without mercy”) and no UN investigation will take statements from aggrieved Syrians or France’s neglected and discriminated-against Muslim minority.
No governments, NGOs or respectable media outlets will suggest that France, as by far the stronger, richer and better-armed party, must offer concessions to its enemies as the only way to achieve peace.
Am I making comparisons with the way the world responds to Israel’s struggle against terrorism? Yes, of course. Isn’t it bad taste to make this about Israel at a time like this? Yes again. […] It may be only at a time like this that Europe, in particular, stands a chance of being able to recognise the hypocrisy, injustice and self-harm that it inflicts by its discriminatory treatment of the Jewish state. […]. While Paris’s tragedy is not all about Israel, it is also about Israel. Decades of excusing, justifying and flattering haters, of denying motives and downplaying effects, of buying off terrorists and appeasing bullies, has not only cost Israeli lives but validated the methods that are now coming back home to Europe, and the fight is going to be that much harder when Europe has spent the past 50 years refining the arguments and sharpening the weapons that have been used to counter every defence Israel has tried to use.
This echoes what I noted in my previous post: what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews.
It’s about time the world learned this lesson well.