Friday, March 25, 2016

NEW EVIDENCE: IRAN’S ROLE IN 9/11



Recently disclosed documents reveal a disturbing tale.



March 25, 2016


Supreme Leader Khamenei (center) with IRGC Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari (right)
Many scholars, politicians and policy analysts argue that the Shia and Sunni branches of the religion of Islam are in competition, politically. As a result, they argue.  These two sects do not cooperate with each other.
In addition, they claim that the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Shiite religious-political establishment, would never coordinate with its rivals, the Sunni radical groups, due to their animosity towards each other.
This kind of binary analysis is simply naïve, unsophisticated, and fails to address the complexities and nuances of the socio-political and socio-religious landscapes of the Middle East and Islamic countries.
It is crucial to point out that although both Shiite militias and Sunni radical groups compete in the region, they do stand with each other when their interests converge. One of their ideological and strategic convergences is attacking the “Great Satan,” the US, or its ally Israel.
For example, although Hamas is a Sunni group, the Shiite radical government of Iran has continuously financed, trained, and delivered arms to its fighters and leaders.
Another prominent example that has been ignored by the liberals is the link between Iran and Al Qaeda.
For a long time, Iran has been a shelter for Al Qaeda leaders. But more recently, strong judicial and intelligence evidence shows that the Islamic Republic had a significant role and connection with Al Qaeda in conducting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which killed thousands of innocents Americans.
Recently released documents from a federal court in the US reveal that Iran and the Shiite radical group Hezbollah had a “firsthand” role in the perpetration of 9/11.
U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York ordered the Islamic Republic to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
According to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,  "In the Havlish (previous) proceeding, this Court held that 'Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 terrorists' specific terrorist travel operation' and [that] facilitation of Al Qaeda's operatives' travel to training in camps in Afghanistan was 'essential for the success of the 9/11 operation …. The second way in which Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 attacks was that a terrorist agent of Iran and Hezbollah helped coordinate travel by future Saudi hijackers [.]'"
But the major questions to address are: while Obama’s administration continues its appeasement policy with the ruling authoritarian clerics of Iran, how can anyone hold Iranian leaders accountable for 9/11 or push the Iranian government to pay the damages? Should we continue rapprochement with this regime? President Obama will most likely not agree to even pay damages to the victims from Iran’s frozen assets. He will avoid anything that might upset the Iranian government and its Supreme Leader.
On the other hand, the Supreme autocrat of Iran is increasing his anti-Americanism as the White House continues to placate him. Although Khamenei is receiving billions of dollars due to the sanctions relief thanks to the Obama administration, his last speech was full of anti-American sentiments. In his hometown of Mashahad, where Khamenei gives a speech every year on the Persian New Year, he lashed out at the US and declared that the United States remains the preeminent enemy of the Islamic Republic. Khamenei even ridiculed President Obama for giving a message to the Iranian youth this week, on the Persian New Year. He also called Obama’s arrangement of haft-sin sofreh [a traditional Nowruz food] a way to deceive the Iranian youth.
Furthermore, by increasing his anti-Americanism, the Islamic Supreme Leader of Iran is preparing the path to pull out of the nuclear deal after United Nations Security Council’s sanctions are lifted against the country.
Finally, instead of releasing billions of dollars to the terrorist government of Iran, the U.S. President should address the concerns of the 9/11 victims by holding the Iranian government accountable. For the Iranian leaders, the more the US compromises, the weaker it is getting in the eyes of the Islamic Republic.
 Tags: 9/11, Iran, Jihad

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Today's Tune: Brian Fallon - A Wonderful Life (Live)

Brian Fallon: The Examined Life


By Tom Lanham  |  March 22, 2016

NME
“The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates once sagely noted. And sometimes we enter into such self-reflection of our own volition. Other times, we’re forced into it by circumstances simply beyond our control. Gaslight Anthem bandleader Brian Fallon, for instance, was caroming through a pell-mell existence with his band, in an endless cycle of album releases, then attendant touring, with no spare time for any observations that went deeper than the glossy rock-star surface. But three years ago, everything changed. And he was forced to take a long, hard look at himself, which led to his new solo set, Painkillers, his most brutally honest yet altogether anthemic and uplifting work to date.
In retrospect, the catalyst is crystal clear: Three years ago, the 36-year-old singer/guitarist divorced his wife Hollie after a decade together. In response, he penned a reactionary record, 2014’s Get Hurt, Gaslight’s fifth. Amid the disc’s meat-and-potatoes power chords that have been the New Jersey group’s stock in trade since its definitive sophomore outing in 2008, The ’59 Sound, there were forlorn, ego-bruised entries like “Dark Places,” “Break Your Heart,” and the self-explanatory “This is Where We Part.” They echoed the first initial sting of spousal separation, but didn’t delve into any serious emotional pain. That would come later.
“Get Hurt was more of a knee-jerk response, so I don’t think that there was that much reflection involved in it,” Fallon believes. “And I tried not to make the whole record about [the divorce], but you can’t shy away from what’s on your mind, as a writer or as an artist of any kind—I don’t think you can escape the immediacy of what’s in your subconscious, because it’s got to get out. So I was just trying to kick it all out and get it out of my system.” He spent most of the Get Hurt tour feeling numb and vacant, like a passenger, he says. Inside, he was slowing down, starting to muse on his extraordinary existence and then coming to terms with the finality of where he’d ended up. There was no going back.
“It’s like if you get an injury, like you break a leg or something,” says the artist, who wasn’t used to being alone. “Something like that really allows you to look around and take stock of where you’ve been. And I think in that period of injury—and kind of figuring out what to do now—I definitely looked back on the things that had happened and my career. And I was like, ‘Hey, you know, this is a good thing, and I’m pretty fortunate to have been to places and seen and done the things that I have.’ And it took me back to why I started writing music in the first place, and not necessarily what was the immediate next project that had to be completed.”
In fact, Fallon admits, he didn’t compose a single number for several months after returning from that tour to his mausoleum-spooky new bachelor pad, which had no art or posters hanging on its walls—an embarrassing fact that he would eventually address on one of Painkillers’ most propulsive cuts, the Dylan-jangling “Red Lights”: “In all good faith and sentiment I can’t believe somehow/ That I haven’t died of grief or something since you left this town/ I’m all undecorated, cigarettes, standard white apartment walls.”
“I definitely was just sitting there, thinking,” he adds. “For the first time in my life, I was in a room by myself, but I didn’t have that ‘Woe is me’ feeling, and I didn’t allow myself to complain about it. I was like, ‘Wow. Okay. We’re here now. I don’t know how we got here, but we’re here. This is the new deal, so you’ve got to get used to it.’ I decided that that was my chair, and I was going to sit in it and go with it.”
Painkillers was worth all the turmoil and ongoing analysis. From the twangy title track to the punk-folk hybrids “Rosemary,” “Nobody Wins” and the New Orleans-flavored “Mojo Hand” and the customary closing ballad “Open All Night,” it’s easily one of the best records of the year so far. Bouncing jarringly through serious subjects like guilt, recrimination and self-doubt, it stands as an epitaph on a once-thriving relationship, best exemplified in this telling passage from “Rosemary”: “And there’s a hole in me now/ Like the windshield was taken out/ And everybody’s hurt, and mine ain’t the worst/ But it’s mine and I’m feeling it now.” And it shines a spotlight on a songwriter not only in love with his craft—and the musical history that preceded him—but one reaching the hallowed upper echelons of his boyhood idols. Call it the vocalist’s own personal Full Moon Fever, on which he collaborated with pop-savvy producer Butch Walker (in a real ‘Why didn’t anybody think of this team-up before?’ kind of moment) and a new backing band—bassist Catherine Popper, Mark Stepro on drums, and Walker himself on piano, guitar and backing vocals. Also dropping by the sessions: Gaslight’s Alex Rosamilla on keyboards and Fallon’s partner in the acoustic duo The Horrible Crowes, guitarist Ian Perkins. He’s found his own keen-eared Jeff Lynne for future collaboration.
Fallon even began seeing a therapist once a week to combat his anxiety, depression and ensuing writer’s block. Soon, his existential crisis didn’t seem so dire anymore. In essence, he was considering the rest of his life, and he wanted to be not just content, but happy. “You bought the ticket, you’re in the movie, so you’ve got to finish it out, and you can finish it on a high note, or on a low note,” he explains. “So I thought, ‘Let me take this as an opportunity to figure out what exactly I’m doing—and not doing—right.’ So I took a lot of stock. And once you start looking within yourself for what’s wrong with you—not what’s wrong with the rest of the world—that’s when you’re seeing everything. Everything else that maybe you ignored or just didn’t realize.” So the prime question became: how could he change to make not only his life, but the universe around him, better?
This led to the record’s picture-perfect opening track, the stomping, celebratory “Wonderful Life,” and “Maybe there’s more than the treasures we secured that become heavy chains to sink us in tidal waves/ I want a life on fire, going mad with desire/ I don’t want to survive, I want a wonderful life.” Fallon’s charismatic, sandpapery rasp has never sounded more defiant, his working-class lyrics never so everyman-relevant. But Painkillers practically claims the sound as his own, thanks in part to Walker, who sharpened Fallon’s hooks into taloned points and pushed him into new sonic territory often bordering on alt-country—turf he’d already explored the Get Hurt pedal steel lament “Sweet Morphine,” one of his personal catalog favorites.
It all started post-juggernaut, Fallon recalls, when he and his exhausted bandmates all agreed that Gaslight Anthem should take a breather. Initially confused about how to proceed, he simply chose to get back to work, writing music. That was his identity, and all he knew. Raised on a diet of (and even befriended by) Bruce Springsteen, he used to throw in random lyrics like “No surrender, my Bobby Jean” that namechecked his hero (on Painkillers, he tips the poetic hat to Leonard Cohen and Van Morrison). Then, once he accompanied The Boss onstage in London, the Red Bank, N.J.-bred rocker grew tired of the inevitable journalistic comparisons that arose. So he shied away from obvious homages, outside of a telling cover of Tom Petty’s jagged “You Got Lucky” on 2012’s Brendan O’Brien-helmed Handwritten. But he realized that he’d been overreacting.
Left to his own devices, Fallon began adorning his digs with posters of Pearl Jam and old movies, whatever caught his fancy on eBay. Then he pulled out all of his old favorite albums, including Springsteen’s first three albums, plus his more gothic, skeletal later work, like Devils and Dustand The Ghost of Tom Joad. Some Bob Seger was thrown in for good measure, plus the entire Beatles collection—he wanted to study the non-singles tracks that he’d never gotten familiar with. “It wasn’t really for anybody else—it was just for me,” he says. “I was reminding myself where I was coming from, and refocusing on where I’d been. And it was a nice reminder.” He laughs. “It really was like sitting in an old chair. It was like, ‘Alright, this is you. This is who you are. You’re a fan of rock and roll music, that’s your thing. So go back and tell people that.’” That’s how thePainkillers concept occurred to him, he says—they were the crowd-pleasing rock anthems that had always made him feel good, no matter how bad his day had been going. So he was going to pen a few of his own.
The composer was also expanding his horizons via literature.Once he learned that, say, Dylan read a certain crucial text, he would track it down and read it, too—as he did with Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath since Springsteen wrote about it in Tom Joad. “Jon Landau, Bruce’s manager, said that Bruce will take anything and just absorb it and make it his own, and then kind of spit it out,” he marvels. “And I took that to heart. I thought, ‘That’s cool. Just take in everything and spit it out, and it’ll come out as you. Because it is you.’”
At first, Fallon thought he might disappear into another Crowes-like side project. With Popper, he had formed a playful Dylan-inspired combo called Molly and the Zombies, just to perform an Asbury Park Christmas concert with The Bouncing Souls. That’s where his rustic new solo cut “Smoke” originated, he says, before he brought it to Walker, who dissembled it into the jug-band stomper it is on Painkillers. At Walker’s urging, he co-wrote the ‘60s-ethereal chimer “Steve McQueen” with Semisonic/Trip Shakespeare founder Dan Wilson—in only 40 minutes, he proudly points out. The conversation was simple. Wilson asked him what he was into, he replied Mustangs and Steve McQueen, “And Dan said, ‘That’s really cool—why don’t you write a song about that?’” he chuckles.
Of course, self-assessment can sometimes go too far, possibly descend into egomaniacal navel gazing. But Fallon swears that will never happen to him. He’s just too damned insecure, you see. “I feel like if you talk to me for a week straight, you’ll be like, ‘That guy’s a dummy!’” he concludes. “But there are these moments of arriving at this stuff, these lightning bolts that get shot into my head, where I feel grateful for them. Because I still don’t know how they come out—I just stumble upon them. It’s almost like they…they just appear on the page.”

HASHTAG: WE ARE NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN!


By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
March 23, 2016


Rescue workers treat injured people after the bombing at the Maelbeek underground station in Brussels on Tuesday. (RTL Belgium via Reuters)


Immigration is the new "No Nukes/Save the Whales" movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: "Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. ... We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant."

Trump's reference to London's no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was "unhinged," Sen. John McCain called him "foolish," and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump's remarks went "against everything we stand for and believe in." (Based on Trump's crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what "we" believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London's police said, "Mr. Trump could not be more wrong," and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump's comments "utter nonsense."

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: 'TRUMP'S NOT WRONG -- WE CAN'T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS': Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So 'Radicalised' They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: 'THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON': Policemen Back Trump's Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: 'TRUMP IS RIGHT!' Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. "There is something going on, Maria," he said. "Go to Brussels. ... There is something going on and it's not good, where they want Sharia law ... There is something bad going on."

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: "Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels." News is no longer about communicating information; it's about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he's right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, "Better dead than rude."

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, "deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium's beloved beer and chocolate." Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don't think he was knocking Belgium's beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week's bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, "We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live."

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, "I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning ..." Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: "Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism."

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster -- something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn't natural at all. It's the direct result of government policy.

It's as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it's not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America -- a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls "Hitler's revenge."

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don't kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are ... Muslims.

What we've learned from Hitler is not: Don't attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are ... Muslims.

And what we've learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again ... Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms -- because the one and only lesson we've learned from Hitler is: DON'T DISCRIMINATE!


COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER 

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?


By PIERS MORGAN FOR MAILONLINE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
22 March 2016


I interviewed Trump  this morning on my UK morning TV show GMB where he gave his views on the attacks and what should be done to stop ISIS
I interviewed Trump this morning on my UK morning TV show GMB where he gave his views on the attacks and what should be done to stop ISIS


How many more?

That’s all I could think this morning as news broke of yet another ISIS terror attack, this time in Brussels.

How many more innocent men, women and children are going to be blown to pieces by these murderous bastards?

How many more airports, train stations, sports stadiums, restaurants or concert halls will be obliterated in a hail of suicide bombs and bullets?

How many more world leaders will wring their hands on national television afterwards and spout pointless platitudes about the ‘poor brave victims’ and ‘heroic emergency services’?

How many taunting, gleeful claims of responsibility will the despicable perpetrators of these evil crimes be able to issue?

I’m sick of this, aren’t you?

Sick of feeling sick about such endless, senseless barbarism.

And the worst thing about it is that I see no end.

The inherent problem which causes it, chaotic war-torn instability in the Middle East, is getting worse, not better; just as the financial and military resource of the enemy is growing greater, not reducing.

Yet just as the world is crying out for strong decisive leadership, there is none.

America has a demob happy President Obama eeking out his last few months in office. A man whose infamous ‘leading from behind’ philosophy to foreign policy has been partly responsible for the war in Syria raging uncontrollably for five years – allowing fundamentalism to ferment.

Obama has zero interest in doing anything tangible to really deal with ISIS. This is now parked in the tray marked ‘next president’s problem.’

Europe, meanwhile, is splintering at the seams, ravaged by an unprecedented migration crisis that nobody seems to have a clue how to handle.

German chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let a million migrants into its country is already seen to be an utter disaster.

France, reeling from two horrendous attacks in Paris, is understandably highly fearful of yet more terror coming its way.

Belgium officials effectively conceded today that they have no real way to protect themselves against the ISIS threat. A fact surely born out by the fact that today’s onslaught in Brussels happened right when the city most expected it, following the capture of Paris attacks suspect Saleh Abdeslam three days ago.

Britain, surely a target anytime soon, is on red alert but its warring politicians are too distracted by the upcoming EU referendum in June to pay anything more than lame lip service to terrorism.

So nobody seems to be doing anything concrete to stop ISIS, or even suggesting a new way to do so given the spectacular lack of success to date.

Well almost nobody.

By coincidence, I had an interview scheduled today with the world’s most controversial man, Donald Trump, for my UK show, Good Morning Britain.

It was set up a couple of weeks ago, but the timing was eerily prescient.

Here is one man who definitely has a plan to deal with ISIS terrorism. Several plans in fact.

The problem is that people don’t like them. Well, a lot of people don’t anyway.

Trump, current front-runner for the Republican nomination, wants to hit ISIS ‘so hard they never recover’.

(As he told me: ‘You've got to take them out and you've got to take them out harshly and you've got to take them out fast.’)

He also wants a short-term ban on Muslims entering the U.S. until, as he puts it, ‘we figure out what the hell is going on?’

And he wants to torture suspects like Abdeslam with techniques like water-boarding to try and extract information about future attacks.

Oh, and he wants to build a giant wall to stop illegal immigrants pouring over the Mexican border into America. 

George Clooney hit out at Trump yesterday, as he endorsed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton for the presidency, saying: ‘If you listen to the loudest voices out there today, you'd think we're a country that hates Mexicans, hates Muslims, and thinks that committing war crimes is the best way to make America great again.’

I spoke to Trump for 40 minutes. He was, as you’d expect, bombastic, defiant and self-congratulatory. Why wouldn’t he be? He’s ripped up every political rulebook to take this presidential race by storm, a scenario that is hardly going to deflate the ego of New York’s most cock-sure billionaire tycoon.

But he also spoke in more detail about his plans to combat ISIS and I found myself nodding more than I expected.

Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.

Is he so wrong?

He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror.

Is he so wrong? 

I didn’t feel I was talking to a lunatic, as many seem to view Trump.

I saw a guy, a non-politician unfettered by PC language restraints, who is genuinely furious at the devastation which ISIS is wreaking, and seriously concerned for the security of his fellow Americans and indeed, the citizens of Europe.

(Remember, Trump’s from New York and felt the horror of 9/11 very personally and very deeply like all New Yorkers.)

His plans for tackling this extraordinarily dangerous threat to the world have been widely condemned as ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’.

But although I publicly criticised him for the Muslim short-term ban suggestion, I’ve known Trump for ten years and I don’t believe he’s a racist.

I think he’s someone who has spent his life responding to metaphorical punches on his nose by punching even harder back. 

And right now, he firmly believes that ISIS will murder countless more Americans and Europeans if somebody somewhere doesn’t stand up and punch them hard in the face.
Someone prepared to stop spewing politically-correct niceties after these attacks, hoping nobody gets offended, and actually DO something.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, right now ISIS is winning this war and will continuing committing utter carnage on our streets on an ever graver and more barbaric scale until they are stopped.

I don’t have the answers to how to do that.

But I don’t hear any good ideas coming from any world leaders at the moment either, and it’s their highly paid jobs to work it out.

Instead, I see a global paralysis driven by fear, confusion and woeful lack of leadership.

And it will only get worse.

Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognise the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it.

They may not win him the Politically Correct Pontificator of the Year award. But how many more scenes like this morning’s appalling images from Brussels are we going to tolerate before we try a non-PC option to beat these disgusting excuses for human beings?

At the end of our interview, I asked Donald Trump to send a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us.

‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I'm just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they're not reporting it, they're absolutely not reporting it and that's a big problem.’

Is he so wrong? 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504893/PIERS-MORGAN-comes-terror-isn-t-time-started-listening-seriously-Trump.html#ixzz43iyGu7J0 


Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tomorrow's Civilizational Cringe Today


By Mark Steyn
March 22, 2016

A picture released by the Belgian Federal Police shows a screengrab of the airport CCTV camera showing suspects of Tuesday's attacks at Brussels Airport, in Zaventem. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)


The bloodbath in Brussels? As I said to Hugh Hewitt on a previous occasion, all the stories are different, and yet they're all the same. And, alas, it becomes harder to mourn the dead when we never avenge them. No doubt that narcissist wanker who plays "Imagine" is already dragging his piano to the airport or the metro.*

A decade ago, I cited a Tim Blair reader's unimproveable parody of all those dreary navel-gazing warnings that the actual deceased don't matter except insofar as they portend a hypothetical attack against the real victims here:
British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing
But the old jokes don't play when everyone who matters in our world does them for real. 
This time round the government official with direct responsibility for dealing with today's slaughter, a slice of ham with the absurdly Tintinesque name of Jan Jambon, issued the usual halfwit apologia the day before the atrocity. As M Jambon, the Belgian Interior Minister, told CNN on Monday:
Jambon says the majority of young Muslims are well integrated into Belgian society, but admits his government has more to do to make some feel "at home" in their own country, given that a sense of alienation can leave them open to the threat of radicalization. 
"We're talking about third- and fourth-generation [immigrants]; these youngsters are born in Belgium, even their fathers and mothers are born in Belgium, and still they are open for these kind of messages. This is not normal -- in the U.S., the second generation was the President; here, the fourth generation is an IS fighter -- so that is really something we have to work on."
So "British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing" is now joined by "Belgian Cabinet Minister Says Tomorrow's Train Bombing Is All Our Fault".

So "we" have to work on it. That means you, the Flemish frequent flyer, poking your head up from the rubble at the airport concourse. And you, the Walloon strap-hanger blinking into the dust and chaos and wondering where the lower part of your left leg went. You are going to "have to work on" it, harder and harder and harder.

Just how are they going to work on it? In Brussels, the terrorists blew up the area outside the secure zone. Which was entirely predictable. As I wrote six years ago:
The second thought that strikes you is that the ever-longer lines to get into the "secure" area are now the least secure area in America. Why not blow up the security line? You could kill as many people as on an airplane, and inflict more long-term economic damage. But don't worry. The TSA has plans to expand the "secure" area, so the insecure perimeter will be somewhere else, with even more vulnerable people standing around waiting to get into it.
Clearly we need a secure zone outside the secure zone - maybe, say, outside the concourse. So everyone has to crowd on the sidewalk. And then when they blow that up we can move it back to the perimeter of the airport. And then...

Where's the "safe space" against an enemy that wants to blow up everything? One year ago, after Copenhagen, I wrote:
I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what's their happy ending here? What's their roadmap for fewer "acts of violence" in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish "Troubles" "an acceptable level of violence"? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it's all entirely "random", as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it's tough if it's your kid, but that's just the way it is. If we're being honest here, isn't that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don't worry, we'll do our best to contain it - and you can help mitigate it by not going to "controversial" art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or...
...or sports stadia and restaurants and rock concerts. Or railways stations and airports.

As I've said so often now, I'm Islamed out. I happen to be semi-Belgian, although my family is from Sint-Niklaas rather than Brussels, an ancient city in a minor kingdom hideously transformed into the "capital city" of "Europe" and brutalized by the Eurocrats' reach-for-the-sky monuments to their own visionary genius. On my last visit, the totalitarian skyscrapers towering over the mere mortals in the vast empty plazas below were decorated with giant billboards dangling down 30 stories of rain-streaked concrete bearing the inspiring slogan "Strengthening Europe Through Governance."

No, sir. Killing Europe Through Demographic Transformation. As I wrote after Paris:
So I say again: What's the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn't prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his "pitiless war" isn't serious.
That's the only thing that will make a difference - recognizing that, as "vibrant" and "diverse" and "multicultural" as we are, we cannot assimilate Islam on the scale Frau Merkel and others are demanding. This isn't Belfast. It can't be held down to "an acceptable level of violence". In the long-term, there's no assimilation, only civilizational suicide.

I regret having to begin every other paragraph with "As I wrote...", but the fact is this problem was in plain sight a decade ago - and all M Jambon and the rest of the European political class did was sit back and accelerate the rate of Islamization. As I wrote (last time, I promise) in my book America Alone:
In June 2006, a 54-year old Flemish train conductor called Guido Demoor got on the Number 23 bus in Antwerp to go to work. Six – what's that word again? – "youths" boarded the bus and commenced intimidating the other riders. There were some 40 passengers aboard. But the "youths" were youthful and the other passengers less so. Nonetheless, Mr Demoor asked the lads to cut it out and so they turned on him, thumping and kicking him. Of those 40 other passengers, none intervened to help the man under attack. Instead, at the next stop, 30 of the 40 scrammed, leaving Mr Demoor to be beaten to death. Three "youths" were arrested, and proved to be – quelle surprise! - of Moroccan origin. The ringleader escaped and, despite police assurances of complete confidentiality, of those 40 passengers only four came forward to speak to investigators. "You see what happens if you intervene," a fellow rail worker told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen. "If Guido had not opened his mouth he would still be alive." 
No, he wouldn't. He would be as dead as those 40 passengers are, as the Belgian state is, keeping his head down, trying not to make eye contact, cowering behind his newspaper in the corner seat and hoping just to be left alone. What future in "their" country do Mr Demoor's two children have? My mother and grandparents came from Sint-Niklaas, a town I remember well from many childhood visits. When we stayed with great-aunts and other relatives, the upstairs floors of the row houses had no bathrooms, just chamber pots. My sister and I were left to mooch around cobbled streets with our little cousin for hours on end, wandering aimlessly past smoke-wreathed bars and cafes, occasionally buying frites with mayonnaise. With hindsight it seemed as parochially Flemish as could be imagined. Not anymore. The week before Mr Demoor was murdered in plain sight, bus drivers in Sint-Niklaas walked off the job to protest the thuggery of the – here it comes again - "youths". In little more than a generation, a town has been transformed. 
Of the ethnic Belgian population, some 17 per cent are under 18 years old. Of the country's Turkish and Moroccan population, 35 per cent are under 18 years old. The "youths" get ever more numerous, the non-youths get older.
M Jambon can demand all he wants that aging Flemings and Walloons re-double their efforts to make these alienated third-generation Belgians feel "at home". But on that remorseless arithmetic it will be their home, and you'll be the ones having to "work harder" at "integrating" with them.

As for M le Ministre's regret - that in America a second-generation immigrant can be president while in Belgium he's a jihadist - oh, don't worry: a second-generation Euro-Muslim will be prime minister of Belgium soon enough. As I wrote (okay, one more) in 2007, a decade ago Muslims were already ten out of seventeen members of the ruling party on Brussels city council - or 59 per cent. What will it take to make them feel "at home"? Eighty-nine per cent? Well, then, we have to work on it!

~When America Alone came out in 2005, I was interviewed by Michelle Malkin about this very subject. Today she's re-posted that interview:
Today's bloody jihad attacks in Brussels are yet another stark reminder that the Islamization of Europe didn't happen overnight... 
Ten years ago, I sat down with the incomparable Mark Steyn for an interview about Europe, Islam, demographics, and his trenchant and timeless book, America Alone.
Click below for Part One:



For parts two, three and four of my interview with Michelle, please see here.

*UPDATE: Re "Imagine", looks like these guys beat him to it. God Almighty. As I write (look, honestly, it's really the final one) last time round:
'Imagine there's no countries...'
Keep this up and there won't be.

Brussels and Willful Blindness


By Andrew C. McCarthy — March 22, 2016


A soldier waves off a cameraman in the aftermath of the Brussels, Belgium, terror attack

Defense Secretary Ash Carter happened to be scheduled to testify before Congress today. Thus, he provided the government’s first reaction to the jihadist atrocity in Brussels, in which 31 are dead (the toll is expected to rise) and scores of others have been wounded. Secretary Carter called the attacks a “tragedy.”

The mass murder obviously has tragic effects for those killed and wounded, and for their families, but this is not a tragedy. It is a war crime targeting a civilian population in the course of an ongoing war, which — notwithstanding the reckless posturing by the commander-in-chief — is not close to “winding down,” much less being over. It was simply shocking this morning to watch split screens. On one, we saw President Obama spend fleeting seconds on a peremptory acknowledgement of the attacks before moving on to his long, celebratory speech about how he has put the Cold War to rest in Cuba by working with “President Castro.” On the other screen, Belgians chaotically fled fire and debris while emergency personnel rushed the wounded to ambulances and carried out the dead.

Our enemies are at war with us. They continue to execute acts of war, not tragedies, against us. We cannot “end” the war by withdrawing from it; we can only lose that way. We cannot prevail, or even adequately protect ourselves, without seeing the enemy plain: radical Islam — Islamic supremacists determined to impose sharia on the world, with jihadists as the pointy end of the spear, and ideological sympathizers as their support system.

Because the latest round of war crimes occurs in the context of our momentous decision about who will be the next commander-in-chief, it is worth observing that Ted Cruz, whom I support (and on whose advisory team I serve), has stressed a recognition that the enemy is radical Islam. 
This is not just campaign rhetoric. We know, nearly a quarter century after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that jihadist cells arise and thrive in ideological enclaves; that is where the radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, plotting, and injection and protection of jihadist immigrants occurs. We cannot deny reality by rationalizing that if we admit the truth we will be misunderstood as being “at war with Islam” — as in all Muslims.

What we like to think of as “radical Islam” is actually a legitimate and rabidly anti-Western interpretation of Islam that is followed by millions of Muslims. It is irrelevant to non-Muslims in the West whether theirs is a correct or incorrect construction of Muslim scripture. The remorseless fact remains that its adherents believe it — with a fervor that inspires the kinds of attacks we’ve seen today and have seen over and over again. Those adherents include Muslims who lack the commitment to carry out attacks themselves but nevertheless provide moral (and other) support to those who do, and who populate the Western immigrant enclaves in which the ideology thrives.

It’s a welcome fact that there are other ways of interpreting Islam that do not endorse war and hostility against the West; those who offer these interpretations are our allies, and we should be encouraging them rather than turning to enemies such as the Muslim Brotherhood to help us conduct “community outreach.” Still, the fact that there are pro-Western Muslims and authentically tolerant interpretations of Islam does not — and cannot be allowed to — obscure the fact that Islamic supremacism is a mainstream construction of Islam. It is not “false” Islam, or “anti-Islam.” It is Islam that competes, violently, with other constructions of Islam.

It is not our job to broker the claims these competitors make regarding what is the “true Islam.” It is our job to protect ourselves and our allies, and to crush the jihadist armies and cells that are prosecuting the war against us. If we do not acknowledge what the threat is and where it is coming from, we will continue to embrace the policies that empower the enemy. In a time of war, we cannot indulge a policy of mass immigration from countries where sharia supremacism is a significant presence.

With respect to Muslim immigrant communities that are already here, we must have sensible surveillance policies that identify and focus police attention on mosques and community centers that endorse anti-Western Islamic supremacism. That is not a dragnet against all Muslims; it is the arena where pro-American Muslims can step up and help us. No law-enforcement or intelligence agency wants to waste its time and resources investigating innocent people. But we have to be clear that Muslims who endorse Islamic supremacism, who want our Constitution supplanted by sharia, are on the wrong side of this war, regardless of whether they cross the line into violence.

Finally, we cannot tolerate jihadist safe havens anyplace on earth. The administration recently conceded that it has no strategy to deny the Islamic State — which has claimed responsibility for today’s attack — their sanctuary in Raqqa (to say nothing of their other strongholds). Let’s be clear: If ISIS is orchestrating attacks on the West from Syria and Iraq, that is an American national-security challenge, not just a civil war in a faraway place. American national-security problems cannot responsibly be delegated to other forces who will carry out our defense and war-fighting responsibilities for us. This is our problem.

There has not yet been a serious bombing campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, and it is fair enough to say that the number of troops we may have to commit hinges on how committed we are to an intense air campaign. We should not delude ourselves, however: The jihadists are planning to attack the United States as well as Europe, and it is going to take American military commitment to destroy them — not to carry out an experiment in democracy-building, but to eradicate the threat to our nation and our allies.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.