Germany probably wasn’t aware of this when they allowed him to stay for therapy.
Compassionate Germans are fully aware that refugees may have gone through terrible atrocities. They are having more trouble with the notion that some of these ‘refugees’ ARE those atrocities, and nobody is checking.

* * *
Excellent point; PowerLine makes a similar one about the Normandy attackers today:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/in-normandy-isis-soldiers-slit-priests-throat-take-nuns-hostage.php
The circumstances of the attack raise yet more questions about the French government’s response to the threat of terrorism. One of the attackers reportedly was a convicted terrorist being monitored with an electronic tag while living with his parents. He was allowed out unsupervised between 8.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. The mass he attacked began at 9 a.m.

Unbelievable.

In addition, the church was one of a number of Catholic places of worship on a hit list discovered on an ISIS suspect in April 2015. Maybe the French government didn’t take the list seriously (but when I visited the fabulous Reims Cathedral in July 2015 at least three heavily armed soldiers were on the premises). Maybe it assumed, somehow, the list had an expiration date – just as it apparently assumed before the Nice attack earlier this month that the threat of terrorism had diminished because a soccer tournament had ended.

Unbelievable.
* * *
Exactly what I thought about both points, but in fact it is all too believable.
It’s as if the security forces simply don’t believe these people mean what they say.
So everyone is surprised when they actually DO it.
Now, they might argue that there are X people in the same category (convicted terrorist wannabes) who haven’t attacked anyone, but are you willing to bet your life that no more of them will? Or is there a certain percentage of recidivist X’s that France (or any country) is willing to accept?

There will be a tipping point soon, and the consequences won’t be pretty.

This war is not one we can win by standing on the defensive. France is proof of that. There are thousands of police and soldiers guarding places all over France, from the Eifel Tower to Jewish schools. But the jihadists can always strike at places that are not guarded, or whose guards they can overwhelm. And the guards are themselves targets. Anything and everything is a target; every school, every public building, every government office, every hospital, every bridge and mile of track. There is no way to guard it all.

This war is also an ideological one. The jihadists have their ideology of Muslim world conquest and a new Caliphate. It is an attractive one for Muslims, who would get to swagger around and lord it over the wretched dhimmis. They would take the wealth of the dhimmis and live high on the camel’s hump until. We must counter that ideology with one of our own.

That would be prosperity and liberty in the modern world. One of the purposes of the Iraq Campaign was to present that ideology and show it working in Iraq. We had to stay there and help it along, so when Obama pulled out we lost the chance to encourage it. Now Iraq has retrogressed, and we have lost ground in the ideological war.

Of course, most of the government never realized that we had an ideological war on our hands. I read a story in Robert Reilly’s book “The Closing of the Muslim Mind” about an interrogator at Gitmo who was discussing philosophy with one of the prisoners. The prisoner was interested in reading Aristotle when the American mentioned him, so at his request the American tried to get the prison library to get a copy of some of Aristotle’s works in Arabic. The librarians never responded. They got Qurans and nature books with lots of pictures, but it never occurred to them to stock books of philosophy

Reilly traces the crisis of today to the rejection of reason and philosophy by Muslim theologians and ulema and worship of an Allah who is pure will to power, which was completed over a thousand years ago. He calls it Islam’s intellectual suicide. Christianity and Judaisim escaped this trap by the efforts of St. Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonides in reconciling revelation and reason. Reilly’s is a very interesting book.

They are transnationalists, which posits that nationalism is the root of all conflict between peoples. They are also multiculturalists, a necessary philosophical pillar of transnationalism. Dissolving national boundaries is a necessary precursor to dissolving cultural cohesion the necessary foundation to nations.

Add to that Europe’s social welfare state’s low birth rates, low labor participation rates, ‘generous’ benefits, early retirements and cradle to grave ‘protective benefits’ and an ever increasing amount of immigrants is essential to keeping the social welfare Ponzi scheme going.

Europe never looked at the likelihood of an immigrant culture’s ability to assimilate. They didn’t because to do so would have called into question multiculturalism’s premises, which would have in turn threatened transnationalism’s validity.

Now, it’s too late. Europe’s leadership is caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place” they can’t survive Muslim immigration and they can’t survive without it.

Parker, that may be exactly what Allah wants. For Christians to lose the Holy Ghost via shedding of blood, vengeance, use of secular might against divine connection. Once you lose that divine connection, then Lucifer can bring in his reserves. Even if Islam is wiped out to the last man and woman, the war of good and evil still continues on this planet. If 95% of Christians become stained with blood guilt, well that’s not a defeat for Lucifer.

Sharon, what you stood in there wasn’t a church of Christ. It was a shrine to Lucifer, the spirit of lies. They claim to bow down to a Heavenly King, but their actual King is on this planet, and isn’t even particularly a politician.

Most of those refugee invaders came from Turkey. And Turkey will most likely be the next Sunni Caliphate. Question then becomes… where is the Caliph? Islamic State has a candidate but… well, there may be contenders.

Is that really what our “Western leaders” want?

Probably. They care about taxes, not about whether white or local children get raped or not.

Doesn’t Richard Landes at The Augean Stables call that “democide” ? Killing off one’s own people?

I can’t think of the exact quote or who said it, but the gist was: Government, becoming tired of the stubborn willfulness of its citizens, decides to remove them and install a whole new group that will be easier to control…

But . . . why replace civilized, law-abiding, Westernized citizens with MUSLIMS? The ONLY places on earth where groups-of-Muslims DON’T run riot is where the ruling despot has a massive military or police presence who are KNOWN to kill (or “disappear”) ANYONE at ANY time, for even a rude gesture.

Is that really what our “Western leaders” want? – the opportunity to behave like the worst of the Pol Pots or Allendes or Ceaucescus of history, free to murder dissenters on a whim? — because importing Muslims-as-citizens will SURELY necessitate just such a thuggish state apparatus to control them.

” Sharon W Says:
July 26th, 2016 at 5:07 pm

When I asked our priest (about 55 years old, from Ireland—highly intelligent and regarded), in a group setting, what would happen if I’m at church using the Lady’s Room and a man walks in, in women’s clothes, (Governor Brown had signed that legislation—choose your own bathroom, locker room back in August 2013), his response was, “Who hasn’t used a bathroom of the other sex, when needed?” The lack of understanding of the intention of these onslaughts against our culture, whether they emanate from Islamists or leftists is truly hard to believe.”

He understands. His non-answer answer is that it doesn’t matter. The pretend woman’s desire for “self expression” and feelings of affirmation are more important to that priest than your bodily privacy and dignity; which are, in their very essence “exclusionary”, and examples of privilege.

“All are welcome” has thus replaced “Lord have mercy”. But you know that; and I know that you know.

Think of the term “self-expression” and what it fully implies. Does not self-expression generally (not always) involve some kind of audience or other who is the target of the expression?

I was trying to figure out the motivation behind that transvestite shit some years ago, when the question suddenly occurred to me: What if they minced around women’s clothes where no one else was? Would they get the same thrill out of it? Or, (and here is the crux) is what they are doing, in its essence some kind of socially embedded act requiring for its/their fulfillment your, or at least someone else’s, participation as they pretend to be women?

The answer instantly becomes obvious when looking at the transgender cases. Your reaction to them, their being validated in their choice, is what they want; not some anonymous ability to drape themselves in culturally relative gender garb.

As Obama says: “mere tolerance is not enough.”

That’s why this crap never ends. It isn’t about them alone: it’s about them using you.

Eventually you either have to give in or put a stop to it somehow.