The man suspected of deliberately ramming a large truck into a Christmas market in Berlin is a refugee from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, two German intelligence officials and a police official told CNN.
The sources said the suspect in Monday evening’s attack, which killed 12 people and injured dozens more, arrived in Passau, a city on Germany’s border with Austria, on December 31, 2015, after traveling through the Balkans.
This attack could have political repercussions in Germany:
“I know that it would be especially hard to bear for us if it was to be confirmed that a person (who) committed this act … was given protection and asylum in Germany,” [German Chancellor Angela Merkel] said.
Monday’s attack could cause further political upheaval for Merkel, who has come under criticism over her government’s generous acceptance of refugees. Germany has taken in more than 890,000 asylum seekers in the past year, a marked difference to other European nations.
Note, too, this attack was a virtual copy of the Bastile Day attack earlier this year, in Nice, France (cached). Islamist groups have pushed for adherents to use vehicles as weapons against soft targets, so we can probably expect more such attacks in the future.
Now that Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump has been elected president, he’s begun assigning roles to the various men (many of specious character and/or ability) who supported his campaign. The transition process has turned out to be a clusterfuck, which should surprise exactly no one (WebCite cached article).
In August, the Dallas Morning News reported that Flynn had delivered a speech to a Dallas gathering of the anti-Muslim group ACT for America, in which he had called Islam “a political ideology” that hides behind “being a religion,” and “a cancer.”…
“Islam is a political ideology.… It definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion. And I have a very, very tough time because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles shooting up clubs or hatcheting, literally axing families on a train, or like they just killed a couple of police officers with a machete.”
Flynn’s complaint that Islam isn’t a religion, but rather a political ideology, is an oldone amongReligious Rightists. By saying Islam isn’t a religion, the R.R. rationalizes outlawing that religion and robbing Muslims of their religious freedom. Their assumption that Islam could be abolished in the US if it’s found to be a political ideology and not a religion, is — of course — foolish, since in addition to religious freedom, we also have political freedoms. The R.R. could no more ban Islam-as-a-political-ideology than it could the ideology of Leftism (which it would very much like to do, but can’t).
As I’ve blogged many times before, these Neocrusaders view Islam as the chief rival of their own religion (which, for nearly all of them, is Christianity). Their “war” against it is basically just a form of religious one-upmanship … i.e. a way of pushing the narrative that their god is bigger than the Muslims’ god. By agitating against Muslims, they hope to “prove” the virtues of their own religion and make Muslims cave in to them.
As such, it’s all very childish, but this is the ideology that elected Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump. So what can one expect?
Despite the obvious terrorist angle to all of these stories, officials spent the weekend tap-dancing around the issue of whether or not these were terrorist attacks. For instance, in this New York Times story, we read (cached):
Officials said they did not know of any motive — political or social — for any of the attacks.
I grant that America’s Neocrusaders will jump for joy, again, over these attacks and attempted attacks. In their minds it will “prove” how horrific Islam is, and that it must be outlawed and all Muslims banished. They’ll also see it as “proving” their own religion, Christianity, is virtuous and perfect.
It’s long past time for believers — in all religions — to own up to the extremism that lurks deep inside religions generally. It’s true that not all Muslims are terrorists like the cretins in Minnesota and New Jersey. It’s also true that not all Christians are clinic bombers and doctor killers. In fact, the majority of Muslims and Christians are the opposite. Nevertheless, their religions have produced those terrorists. People who followed those faiths, having read their sacred texts and having followed their teachings, became violent militants.
That doesn’t happen by accident. It also needs to be fixed. And only believers can do that.
Unfortunately, too many of them don’t wish to do so. They’re too busy waving off events like this, saying “Those terrorists aren’t ‘Real’ Muslims” or “‘Real’ Christians” or whatever. They don’t want to deal with the problem of religious militancy because they’re too infatuated with the presumed virtue of their religion to do so.
More’s the pity. Because as I’ve said many times: If the followers of a religion don’t respect it well enough to police it and control the militants within it, then they can’t reasonably expect outside observers, like myself, to respect it, or them for following it.
Attendance was sparse at the 9 a.m. Mass on Tuesday at the Église St.-Étienne, a 17th-century church in a working-class town in Normandy. Many parishioners were on vacation; so was the parish priest.
Mass was ending around 9:30 a.m. when two young men with knives burst in. They forced the auxiliary priest, the Rev. Jacques Hamel, 85, to kneel. When he resisted, they slit his throat. They held several worshipers and at least one nun hostage, while another nun escaped. Officers from a specialized police unit descended on the church. A short while later, officers shot the young men dead as they emerged from the church.
The brutality in St.-Étienne-du-Rouvray, a suburb of Rouen in northern France, was the latest in a series of assaults that have left Europe stunned, fearful and angry. The Islamic State took responsibility for the killing. Two of its “soldiers,” it said, had attacked a church “in response to the call to target Crusader coalition states.” By killing a priest as he celebrated Mass, the group framed the assault as an act of religious war between Muslims and Christians.
This New York Times article also rather “helpfully” pontificates:
Whether [the attack] will be perceived by the French as a struggle between religions and cultures is less clear. For now, some French politicians seemed willing to take the bait and use the language of sectarian and cultural division.
This little tidbit is in line with what a lot of “experts” have said about ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/whatever-the-fuck and its ilk … that they’re using terror attacks like this one to cause non-Muslims (especially Christians) to go on a raging crusade against Muslims, who — they presume — will then suddenly and magically flock to their banners, converting to their jihadist version of Islam. This thinking has driven the Obama administration’s approach to Islamist terror, as well as that of many other governments, and it explains their relative passivity in light of it all.
I concede the US and many other countries have engaged in military action against ISIS for nearly 2 years. While that’s all well and good, the problem with it is that it has done nothing to curtail ISIS. That savage brood remains free to train and ship vicious jihadists to many places, and even by mere “inspiration” launch attacks all around the globe. Two years of airstrikes have been absofuckinglutely useless in this regard. ISIS is as free as it ever has been to command or inspire primitive savagery throughout the world, and nothing the US or any other member of the anti-ISIS coalition is doing, is preventing it. It’s time for them to review what they’re doing and work to stop it.
A first step, toward that end, would be to recognize the role religion plays, here. As much as a lot of the world’s leaders would like it not to be the case, Muslim religiosity is the impetus of Islamist terror, especially where ISIS is concerned (cached). The role of various Sunni states in promoting Salafism around the world — including our putative ally Saudi Arabia in places like Kosovo (cached) — is something that must be dealt with. So long as outfits like ISIS has a pool of potential recruits either to bring aboard and train in their own territory, or merely inspire as “lone wolves” wherever they happen to be, they will remain a threat. What’s more, it turns out that a lot of recent attacks, in the US and Europe, were carried out by apparent “lone-wolf” jihadists who were on officials’ radar … yet those officials took no action whatsoever to stop them. Ignoring the threat these jihadists pose no longer works — telling others to ignore it won’t, either.
Note: Even with all of this having been said, I don’t approve of going on a rampage against all Muslims, which is what a lot of folks in the Religious Right — whom I refer to as “Neocrusaders” — advocate. Not all Muslims are terrorists … which goes without saying. To condemn all Muslims because some of them are terrorists, is irrational and even childish. What’s needed is to be pragmatic about it: Where there’s something to watch (for example, when someone’s co-workers report he’s mouthing off like an angry jihadist) maybe it’s best to pay fucking attention to what they’re telling you, instead of looking the other way (cached). I dunno, maybe I’m just being too rational and everything … but strangely enough, that seems quite obvious.
As I often do where militant Islamism is concerned, I’ve decorated this post with images intended to offend the extremists.
Ansar al-Islam, the Bangladesh division of al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, or AQIS, has claimed responsibility for the recent killing of blogger Nazimuddin Samad, the jihadist monitoring group SITE reported Friday.
Machete-wielding attackers in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka killed Samad, 26, the sixth secularist writer or publisher to be killed in the city in the last 14 months.
Police said the attack late Wednesday on Samad, a master’s student at Jagannath University, was planned.
“He was on his way back home from his evening classes when he was circled by a group of three to four people,” said Senior Assistant Police Commissioner Nurul Amin of the Dhaka Police.
“First the attackers hacked Samad with machetes, then shot him.”
Police said the attackers then fled the scene on motorcycles. No arrests have been made.
Bangladeshi students took to the streets to protest against the brutal killing.
While I appreciate the protests (and this certainly isn’t the first such occasion), what’s disturbing is the reason they occur: The government of Bangladesh doesn’t really do much about these killings. They largely view the killing of outspoken secularists as a natural and understandable consequence of their outspoken secularism. In response to Samad’s assassination, as the (UK) Daily Star reports, a Bangladeshi minister has decided to investigate his writings rather than his killing (cached):
Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal today said that the write-ups of the slain secular activist Nazimuddin Samad are needed to be scrutinised to see whether he wrote anything objectionable about religion.
He underscored the need for scrutiny in an interview with BBC Bangla Service while asked about possible cause behind the killing.…
“I cannot say right now why it happened or what exactly happened. I need to gather information first,” the minister responded, when asked about the murder that took place Wednesday night.
“It is needed to see whether he has written anything objectionable in his blogs.”
They do this because they’d rather pacify the Islamofascists than stop them. This is actually a very common response to militancy of any sort, because after all, it’s easier to capitulate in the face of violent bullies than it is to stand up to them and even fight them if needed. In the case of secularist bloggers being killed, it’s easier to blame them for their deaths than it is to go after their killers. That this “strategy” (which really isn’t any strategy at all) allows militants to take over, doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.
Three explosions that ripped through the Belgian capital of Brussels on Tuesday killed at least 28 people, according to Belgian media, and raised the reality of terror once again in the heart of Europe.
“We were fearing terrorist attacks, and that has now happened,” Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel told reporters.
Belgian federal Prosecutor Frederic Van Leeuw said it was too soon to know exactly how many people died in the bombings. Yet the Brussels Metro Authority reported that 15 died and 55 were wounded in the subway station blast. And public broadcaster VRT said at least 13 more were killed, and about 35 were injured, in the two blasts in the Brussels airport departure hall.
Of the two explosions at the airport, at least one was a suicide bombing, Van Leeuw said. A blast happened there outside the security checkpoints for ticketed passengers and near the airline check-in counters, an airline official briefed on the situation said.
It’s not yet clear which exact Islamist-terror organization was behind these attacks; there’ve been no claims of responsibility and officials are only just gathering information.[Update 1] At this point there doesn’t appear to be much to say that hasn’t already been said many times already. So I will close with what I said after the Paris attacks last November:
Clearly, the “Religion of Peace” has shown its true colors … again! … even if, by now, no sane person actually needs such an illustration. Predictably, Muslim leaders and organizations around the world have condemned the attacks on Paris, but let’s be honest: Those condemnations will accomplish nothing whatsoever. ISIS/ISIL/IS/whatever-the-fuck and all its ilk will continue their barbaric terror campaigns, and they’ll keep attracting Muslim recruits from around the world. It’s not going to stop just because some scholars of Islam mouth recriminations against Islamist terror. The Islamists already don’t give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks, and they’re not going to, ever. Mere words don’t matter, and have no discernible effect on them.
The sooner the world’s Muslims begin actively (rather than just verbally) dealing with the festering sore deep within their religion, which these violent barbarians believe grants divine sanction to their savage terror campaign, the sooner something can actually be done about it. But sadly, I just don’t see that happening. Not enough of them have the courage to do so.
Nothing will change, I’m sure … just as nothing was done in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. It never does. I’m reminded of this classic Bible verse:
That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
President Obama on Wednesday embraced Muslims in the United States as part of “one American family” and implicitly criticized the Republican presidential candidates in a warning to citizens to not be “bystanders to bigotry.”
In a visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, his first to a mosque in the United States as president, Mr. Obama recited phrases from the Quran and praised American Muslims as a crucial part of America’s history and vital to the nation’s future.
“And so if we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country — we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths,” Mr. Obama said.
Look, I get it. These folk are angry. They hear about Islamist attacks and want all Muslims to be gone. The problem is, not all Muslims are terrorists. Being violent right back at Muslims who aren’t, themselves, violent Islamists is a form of “two wrongs make a right” thinking, and is fallacious.