This might change a few minds. Send it around; I’d like it to get a wide audience:
To see how spot-on with his timing Cruz was, take a look at this:
I suppose Ted haters will consider it too “robotic.” But I think it’s great.
Searching for terrorist arms caches in France
The interior ministry said 168 searches had taken place across the country in the wake of the Paris terror attacks…
Searches in Lille, Strasbourg, Lyon, Grenoble, Marseille and Toulouse resulted in the rocket launcher, flak jackets, 15 hand guns and eight other “weapons of war” being seized, according to Le Figaro.
Mr Cazaneuve said that a total of 31 weapons had been seized so far, with 104 suspected jihadists under house arrest and 23 people taken into custody overnight…
Mr Cazeneuve said: “This is just the beginning… The response of the Republic will be total… The terrorists will never destroy the Republic, because it is the Republic that will destroy them.”…
The raids were carried out under a series of powers that have been put in place by French President Francois Hollande since the massacre which left 129 dead.
Interesting on many levels. One is that it appears to have at least some elements of the Israeli approach I mentioned in the post about the Spengler article. If it continues, it means the French do have the will to do something, and although it doesn’t seem comprehensive enough, it’s still quite early in the game.
But of course, the suspension of the usual checks on government intrusion into people’s homes, under the rubric of “emergency powers,” can be dangerous in and of itself. Its proper use rests on having a government that has the people’s interests in mind and won’t abuse the privilege, particularly to thwart and frame its domestic opponents. That, unfortunately, is often not the case. And I doubt it would be the case if something similar happened here, especially while Obama is president.
France is undergoing a true crisis, and these raids are probably long overdue. But crisis yields opportunity—for tyranny, if a government and its leaders are so inclined.
[ADDENDUM: These are encouraging words, as well. The French Minister announces they will start “the dissolution of mosques where hate is preached.” That sounds as though it refers to the most radical of mosques. This is not against free speech or freedom of religion; it’s always been understood that if speech or a religion are actively involved in murders and the attempted overthrow of the state, what’s involved is no longer mere speech and it’s no longer religious freedom.]
Obama versus the governors
I just want to note that, although I think the governors refusing to accept Syrian refugees are doing the right and necessary thing, it is important only in the sense of alerting people to what’s going on. It won’t ultimately stop “Syrian refugees” from entering their states if those refugees come to this country.
The governors are in the same position as the countries of the EU, only worse. EU countries being ordered to take on refugees they don’t want and whom they see as dangerous to them are still sovereign countries with borders, at least nominally. They can enforce their borders, although pressure will be brought on them.
But what can states do? Build walls? If the refugees are settled in another state, what stops them from moving anywhere they want in the US? I haven’t yet seen a discussion of this issue; perhaps I’m missing something, but that’s the way I see it at the moment.
For a long time Obama has been at war with the states on the topic of immigration; remember the administration’s lawsuit against Arizona when that state tried to enforce federal laws regarding immigration, laws that Obama had refused to enforce? That was serious. But this is even more serious.
[ADDENDUM: As far as I can see, so far the revolt is limited to Republican governors. Fortunately, we’ve got a lot of them, including even a mostly-blue state like Michigan. But if all the Democrats stand with Obama, I repeat that I don’t see how the Republican governors can ultimately keep the new arrivals from resettling in their states. And Obama, I believe, is fully aware of that.]
Spengler: why the French will do nothing
I had notes for a piece that would explore France’s options in fighting the terrorists within. I saw two possible models: their own campaign against Algerian terrorists in the 50s (which I had mentioned in one of my first posts in response to the Paris attack), which was marked by torture and brutality; and the Israeli reaction to the Second Intifada. The first was quite successful but used abominable methods. The second, although distorted and libeled by the press, was painstaking in its care to avoid such excesses, and relatively successful.
I didn’t think France was going to do either; I don’t think they have the will or the ability.
But now I don’t have to write that post, because that is the basic premise of this excellent article by Spengler. An excerpt:
An Algerian War against France’s homebred Muslim radicals isn’t an option. France can no longer find monsters like Generals Raoul Salan and Maurice Challe, the commanders in Algeria during the 1950s who earlier had served the puppet regime of Marshall Petain during the Second World War. There is no-one left to clip on the electrodes. At the same time, France considers Israel’s occupation of Judea and Samaria so abhorrent that it has sponsored a resolution at the UN Security Council to impose a mandatory two-year deadline for the creation of a Palestinian State and Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank. That leaves France in a pickle. If it can’t use the old French counter-terrorism model and abhors the Israeli counter-terrorism model, what can France do? The answer is: nothing. And that is just what France will do in response to last Friday’s attacks.
Please read the whole thing.
It is a terrible irony that France was instrumental (as Spengler notes) in the propaganda war to convince the world that Israel was at fault both in its methods and in its goals. Now France faces its own problem, long ignored and allowed to grow and flourish.
The Paris attacks won’t make Obama blink: full steam ahead
Take a look at the news roundup website Memeorandum today. The headlines and blurbs tell a story.
At the very top we have “Islamic State threatens attack on Washington, other countries”:
Islamic State warned in a new video on Monday that countries taking part in air strikes against Syria would suffer the same fate as France, and threatened to attack in Washington.
Directly below that we have “Obama adviser: refugee plan proceeding despite Paris attacks:
President Obama still plans to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country over the next year, despite terrorist attacks in Paris, at top aide said Sunday. ”” “We’re still planning on taking in Syrian refugees,”…
Next we have “GOP governors reject Syrian refugees”:
At least nine Republican governors are moving to block Syrian refugees from entering their states after Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris that killed at least 130 people and wounded hundreds more.
After that, “Cruz: ”˜No meaningful risk’ of Christians committing terrorism”:
Sen. Ted Cruz Sunday continued to call for Muslim refugees from Syria to be barred from entering the United States but opening the borders to displaced Christians, arguing there is not a “meaningful risk” that Christians will commit terrorist acts.
Then, “Obama rejects calls for change in anti-ISIL strategy”:
President Barack Obama on Monday pushed back against calls for a dramatic rethink in the operation against the Islamic State, ruling out U.S. ground troops despite the “terrible and sickening setback” of last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.
Then another article on the governors’ refusal, then three in a row on Obama “scolding” or “slamming” Republicans for calling for a “religious test” of Syrian refugees, calling it “a betrayal of our values.”
I guess it isn’t Christian of us. We’re not allowed to pay attention and adjust accordingly. In this, Obama is clearly in line with Merkel and those Western European elites who continue to defy the needs of their countries and their people.
Isn’t it funny; I always thought that among our values were the simple ones of protecting our own country and people, as well as applying common sense to a problem. Obama seems fully on board with the European/leftist “solution,” which is to refuse to do either in the name of (at the very best) PC tolerance.
But make no mistake about it—ISIS has no such investment or interest in tolerance; you might say it has no tolerance for tolerance. And that just might be the understatement of the century.
Bombs over Raqqa, Syria
Why on earth was this not done earlier? Was it because everyone was hoping the crocodile would eat them last?:
The operation, carried out in coordination with U.S. forces, struck a command centre, recruitment centre for jihadists, a munitions depot and a training camp for fighters, it said. Activists inside Syria have suggested that no civilian casualties have been sustained in the Raqqa bombings.
Water supplies and electricity have reportedly been cut as a result of the air strikes, with activists claiming there has been ‘panic’ inside the city.
If that’s true, once again I ask: why has this not been done before?
I understand the answer is “lack of leadership, lack of will.” But that doesn’t completely explain it, either. Perhaps the leaders of Europe (and Obama, naturally) were, among other things, deluded into thinking that ISIS hadn’t set its sights on the West and that the carnage would remain confined to the barbaric murder of a bunch of Arabs in Arab countries: Christians, but also Muslims who didn’t quite toe the proper ISIS line.
Paris, on Friday the 13th, may have convinced them otherwise. Not that this response is nearly enough, but perhaps it’s a start.
[NOTE: That article I linked to in the British press has, as is so often the case, the most comprehensive coverage of these events. What is it with the Brits?]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a plus for security and then a big minus (also found in that British article):
Last night French intelligence officials were quizzing a man suspected of being a quartermaster to the Paris murder gang.
The suspect ”“ identified only as ‘Vlatko V’, 51 ”“ had driven 750 miles from Montenegro through Croatia, Slovenia and Austria, before he was stopped on an autobahn in Bavaria last Thursday.
Thursday, the day before the Paris attack.
Officers discovered eight loaded AK-47 assault rifles in secret compartments of his Volkswagen Golf.
Three handguns, two hand grenades, fuses, detonators and almost half a pound of TNT completed the mini arsenal.
Also found in the vehicle were several Parisian telephone numbers and other addresses.
The man, who is Muslim according to unconfirmed reports, has no apparent previous criminal record or specific links to radical Islamists.
But police believe he is linked to organised crime groups in Montenegro that may have agreed to supply weaponry to jihadi groups.
A German intelligence source said police officers blundered by not reporting the seizure to anti-terror specialists in Berlin, who may have alerted France.
It also emerged that French security police arrested a man in August on suspicion of plotting a terror attack on a concert venue.
The man was held just two months after he returned from a six-day trip to Raqqa, Syria.
According to reports, the suspect confessed that he was ordered by an IS leader to return to Europe or France to carry out an atrocity and suggested a busy concert hall as an ideal target.
Of course, “a concert hall” isn’t very specific. But still.]
Ted Cruz on the Paris attacks
[NOTE: I’m adding this video of Ted Cruz speaking on the Paris attacks, which I hadn’t yet seen when I wrote yesterday’s posts. I think it deserves a post of its own.]
I don’t know about you, but this is the man I would trust most to lead this fight. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t trust certain other Republican candidates, but no one holds a candle to Cruz in his combination of eloquence, firmness, intelligence, resolve, proven record of resolute action, and ability to understand concepts and state them with clarity. Cruz is an incredible combination of brains and character, and I fail to understand why he isn’t running away with the nomination in terms of support from conservatives:
[ADDENDUM: Looking at some of the comments, I want to add something I’ve been thinking about for quite some time: I find it astounding that many conservatives argue against Cruz (and for Trump) on the basis of “electability.” Many of those same people have been railing against the “electability” argument that they see many supporters of RINO/establishment candidates as having used for those candidates during past election cycles. I have read these criticisms for over a decade. Those same conservatives have argued that what they want is someone who can articulate consistent conservative principles, and that’s what matters to them. And yet many of those very same people refuse to support Cruz because of Trump’s theoretical “electability.”
By the way, if you look at the polls, there’s nothing whatsoever to support the notion that Trump is most electable. In fact, according to polls, he’s nearly the least electable of a not-so-very-electable bunch (Cruz is not on that particular chart, but he’s here, and his figures are somewhat similar to Trump’s).
Now, you can say that polls don’t matter, and certainly not at this point. And I would agree to a certain extent; right now Hillary has the advantage of huge name recognition and of being the obvious nominee of the Democrats. But if polls don’t tell the whole story, they certainly offer no support for an argument that Trump is most electable. I expect polls to change as the race narrows down and as time passes and unpredictable events occur, but as of now if you want an electable candidate in terms of the polls, go for Carson.
Oh, that’s right, a lot of you didn’t care about “electability.”
Anyone who reads this blog knows what I think of Trump. But right now I’m just speaking pragmatically about electability. I do care at least somewhat about electability, and I’ve yet to see any indication of Trump’s; au contraire. That’s hardly the only reason I’m against him, of course. But it’s one reason I find the electability argument of his supporters especially odd.]
At war with (fill in the blank)
Meanwhile, the candidates of the left stick to the “see no Islam, hear no Islam, speak no Islam” line with regard to terrorists. Hillary Clinton did a mighty convoluted dance during the debate last night:
When moderator John Dickerson asked Clinton whether she agreed with Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R., Fla.) statement that the Paris attacks show “that we are at war with Radical Islam,” Clinton said she would use a term other than “Radical Islam.”
“I don’t think we’re at war with Islam,” she said Saturday. “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”
“He didn’t say all Muslims,” Dickerson said. “He said, ”˜Radical Islam.’ Is that a phrase you don’t [use]?”
“I think you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists,” she said. “But I think it’s not particularly helpful.”
Sanders did her one better by blaming terrorism on climate change. How does he manage to unite such disparate elements? Easy-peasy:
Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. If we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world, and this is what the CIA says, they are going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you are going to see all sorts of international conflict.
That this particular conflict goes back over a thousand years, and that a country such as Israel, faced with the same challenges as the Arab countries in terms of climate, manages to keep its clothed and fed citizens from strapping on suicide belts in Paris, is conveniently ignored for the sake of the left-pleasing narrative that Sanders (not a stupid man) is only too happy to mouth.
Hillary Clinton—also not stupid–does something more, to put a phrase on it, nuanced. Let’s take a closer look at what she does here (and a small kudo to moderator John Dickerson, who attempted to call her on it). First she tried approach number one, distort what the opposition actually said and then object to that rather than to what they actually said (this, by the way, is a very favorite ploy of Obama’s, and relies on believing the electorate is too stupid to follow what you’re doing):
JOHN DICKERSON:
Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Yes.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed– in– the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?
HILLARY CLINTON:
I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists who have–
Dickerson, to have everlasting credit, nips that in the bud:
JOHN DICKERSON:
Just to interrupt, he– he didn’t say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don’t–
Clinton is a little disfluent here—perhaps she didn’t expect to be called on it by a member of the MSM. But here’s where the nuance comes in:
I– I think that you can– you can talk about Islamists who– clearly are also jihadists. But I think it’s– it– it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that– Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we’ve gotta reach out to Muslim countries. We’ve gotta have them be part of our coalition.
If they hear people running for– president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam– that was one of the real contributions– despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a mosque in Washington, “We are not at war with Islam or Muslims.
By using the word “jihadists,” Hillary is using a word that many Americans don’t understand and that has become synonymous with “terrorist” in their minds. It represents a middle line that she thinks will not offend her base (that’s one of the things she means by “helpful”) and yet will represent toughness on terrorism to the moderates she also hope to attract. However, she’s making no sense about appealing to the Muslim world as allies, because “jihadi” is a term they understand in a more generic way and “jihad” is a mostly positive and generic concept in Islam that means “the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth.”
What’s more, those potential allies know full well that what they are fighting is a radical wing of Islam that encourages and supports terrorism. They have been the victims of it, too. Note also how she manages to sneak in that idea that someone is trying to say we’re at war with Islam itself (something no Republican candidate is saying).
Just to clarify: jihadi terrorists are Muslims. They follow certain Islamic precepts and Koranic verses and interpret them in such a way that it justifies and even dictates what they are doing. There are many Muslims and Muslim clerics who disagree and condemn them, but there are many who fully agree and support them, even to the point of inspiring and guiding them. There are mosques known for this; these are real Muslim mosques, and these are real Muslim clerics. There is no question whatsoever that this represents a sizable wing of the Muslim religion, and that another sizable segment of Muslims not actively involved in it nevertheless applaud and justify these activities.
This has been crystal clear for a long time. This represents a disagreement within Islam, but it is wholly within Islam and of Islam. And the people to whom it doesn’t seem “helpful” to say so are, for example, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, because their constituents will not allow it and they are happy to oblige them.
[NOTE: Please compare to the statements of the Republican candidates on the Paris attacks. I’m adding this video of Ted Cruz, which I hadn’t yet seen yesterday but is very impressive.]
More candidate reactions to the Paris attacks
Earlier today I wrote a post that featured powerful responses from Ben Carson and Ted Cruz to yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Paris. At the time, Trump had only responded very briefly to say that his prayers are with the victims.
I’m still awaiting a longer statement from Trump to compare with those from Cruz and Carson. The only additional thing I’ve seen from him so far is his observation (which I share, by the way) that if more Parisians were allowed concealed carry, there probably would have been less bloodshed. Then he asked for a moment of silence. He also briefly criticized Obama for having said ISIS is shrinking. But there’s been no comprehensive statement with any depth in it from him so far.
Carly Fiorina tweeted: “I mourn with you. I pray with you. I stand with you. America must lead in the world. We must wage & win this fight against Islamic terrorism.” Take note of the last two words, those of you who keep asserting none of the candidates other than Trump ever use that phrase.
This is Marco Rubio’s very clear statement of a war between radical Islam and Western civilization:
Jeb Bush says much the same thing without quite as much detail:
I’ll try to add to this as more reactions come in.
The sort of experience one doesn’t easily forget or get over
In the thick of a nightmare that’s unfortunately real, time seems to telescope or expand:
Anthony, another survivor [of the concert shooting], said the fact that he was at the back of the room saved his life.
The moving crowd knocked him to the floor.
When he lifted his head, after a moment that lasted “between 30 seconds and 20 minutes…”, he saw “a bearded guy, no mask, a gun in his hand,” who was shooting methodically.
“I was waiting for the fatal shot,” said Anthony.
“And then somebody yelled that they (attackers) were gone, everybody wanted to get out. I slipped in a pool of thick blood. We crawled, we climbed over people.”
Reading matter
There are so many things to read about the Paris attacks, so many of them worth reading, that I feel as though I’m in a race. But I also need to get away from my computer, so right now I’ll just recommend the many articles at Powerline, and Richard Fernandez. I’ll probably add to this list later.
The terror to come
The ghouls of ISIS are celebrating the attacks and threatening more to come: “American blood is best and we will taste it soon.”
Which brings up the topic of why we haven’t had a large scale terrorist attack in this country since 9/11.
When Bush was president, his response to 9/11 was such that I figured it acted as somewhat of a deterrent to organized terrorism and large-scale attacks on our soil. Why stir the American beast any more, when there were other Western targets without a cowboy like Bush as leader? Once Obama came to power, though, all bets were off.
And yet till recently there have still been no large-scale attacks of the 9/11 or Paris bombings type in this country (perhaps because it took organized terrorism a while to regroup after Afghanistan and Iraq?). I’ve been expecting one or more large attacks here for quite some time, and although I fervently hope I’m wrong in that regard, I continue to fully expect such an attack to happen, now more than ever.
It’s hard to know what our security and intelligence consist of at this point. I can only hope they are better than France’s, but I see no reason to think so. France is a smaller and less diverse country in general, so it should be easier to police, not harder.
At any rate, Obama’s weakness acts as a magnet for this sort of thing, both abroad and here. Terrorists have no fear of systemic and meaningful retaliation. Drone strikes make jihadi martyrs of the leaders (inspiring others), and those leaders can be replaced.
[NOTE: I watched Peggy Noonan speaking on Fox and Friends this morning, and she was both forthright and eloquent on the subject of Obama’s lack of leadership on fighting Islamic terrorism, and how Europe is going to ignore him. If anyone has a link, I’d appreciate it.]
UPDATE 8:31: Commenter “Harold” has kindly responded to my request: