Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Priest in France murdered by ISIS terrorists

Priest in France murdered by ISIS terrorists

Hollande called it a “vile terrorist attack.”

French President Francois Hollande said the men who murdered 84-year-old Jacques Hamel pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). They also took four people hostage. Hollande said:

“[ISIS] has declared war on us,” French President Francois Hollande said Tuesday. “We must fight this war by all means, while respecting the rule of law — what makes us a democracy.”

Authorities identified one terrorist as Adel Kermiche. His parents “flagged his radical behavior to authorities.”

We will continue to update this post as more information becomes available.

The Paris prosecutor gave a press conference. Alexander Marquardt tweeted out the details:

Authorities arrested Kermiche after he tried to travel to Syria. They put an ankle bracelet on him, but could be “deactivated for five hours a day allowing him to leave home without surveillance.” He also had “to check in with police once a day.”

Knives found on the terrorists.

Hollande addressed the nation:

Authorities charged one of the terrorists with terror links before and let him go on bail. He tried to go to Syria twice in 2015 and wore an ankle bracelet.

One terrorist charged with terror links in the past:

Police have released some photos of the scene:

The White House have released this statement:

Amaq, the ISIS news agency, claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying the men did it “in response to calls for attacks on the Crusader alliance.” There are reports the men shouted “Allahu Akbar” when they attacked the church.

In Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, a small town 77 miles northwest of Paris, the two men entered the church from the back and took the priest, nuns, and worshippers hostage. The terrorists slit the throat of Hamel and Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet said one nun “was clinging to life.” The police showed up immediately and killed both attackers “outside the church, said a spokesperson for the French interior minister.”

A nun escaped and described the horrific murder:

A nun who was in the church during Tuesday’s attack said the 86-year-old priest was forced to the ground before his throat was slit.

“They forced him to his knees. He wanted to defend himself. And that’s when the tragedy happened,” said the nun, identified as Sister Danielle.

“They recorded themselves. They did a sort of sermon around the altar, in Arabic. It’s a horror,” she told BFM television.

Of her fallen colleague, she said: “He was a great priest.”

An Italian politician has urged Pope Francis to put Hamel “on a fast track to sainthood:”

Roberto Maroni, the president of the Lombard region, said in an appeal circulated on social media that “Father Jacques is a martyr of faith” and requested that the pope “immediately proclaim him St. Jacques.”

Shortly after the appeal, the hashtage #santosubito, which translates as “saint immediately,” began circulating on Twitter.

The canonization process is a lengthy one involving two miracles attributed to the person’s intercession, but in the case of a martyr only one miracle is needed, after beatification. There must first be a declaration by the Vatican that the person indeed died for the faith.

An anonymous source in the Paris prosecutor’s office said they have detained one person, but did not provide “details on the identity or location.” The anti-terror prosecutor has opened an investigation into the attack.

A Muslim leader in the area told the Associated Press that the French police had at least one of the men on their radar “and had traveled to Turkey.” He continued:

Mohammed Karabila, president of the Regional Council of the Muslim Faith for Haute-Normandie and head of the local Muslim cultural center, told The Associated Press that “the person that did this odious act is known, and he has been followed by the police for at least a year and a half.”

He said the attacker “went to Turkey and security services were alerted after this.” He had no information about the second attacker.

Sources told AFP that the government put the man “under house arrest after attempting to reach Syria last year.” He had an ankle bracelet on him.

[Featured image via Twitter]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I thought the big threat was from air conditioners.

And the Democrats want to import more Muslims. And people who claim to be conservative are considering sitting out the election and letting them walk away with it.

God help us.

      Old0311 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm

      A day late and a dollar short.

        Ragspierre in reply to Old0311. | July 26, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        Did you miss the date?

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 5:52 pm

          rags,
          you missed today’s date. Your post is ancient history and irrelevant.

          Trump won, Cruz lost.
          Trump is the candidate, Cruz is the afterthought.
          The race is between Trump and Hillary. Cruz is not on the ballot.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 6:43 pm

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/ted-cruzs-rnc-speech-gets-the-bad-lip-reading-treatment/

          Noting the comments by you and your “running buddy”, please explain the obvious contradiction…

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 7:04 pm

          No contradiction, rags. They posted an article linking to a fine parody of Ted’s suicide speech, and asked for comments. I commented.

          You posted a link to an irrelevant year old article about Ted. I commented.

          Here’s another comment. The statement that Trump would be worse than Hillary is false. Anyone who makes that statement should justify it by giving a list of things that Trump would do worse than Hillary. Fair warning – I’m going to start asking for it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

          You T-rump sucking liars are hilarious!

          Not only is Cruz NOT an after-thought for you, he’s OBVIOUSLY the foremost thought in your little moronic minds! YOU can’t let him go.

          And we all know why; he had the temerity to NOT endorse your little yellow god on demand!

          You’ve Rick Rolled your own stupid selves…!!!

          Stupid cultists…!!!

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm

          rags,
          the first mention of Cruz in this thread was your post at 12.32. The rest have been responses to that post.
          You’re the one who continues to try to make Cruz relevant.
          You’re the one who continues to try to get Hillary elected.
          You’re the one whose position was rejected at the convention.
          You’re the one who thinks downstream candidates will matter if Hillary gets to set the agenda, veto their bills and appoint the supreme court.
          You’re the one who can’t have a conversation without calling people names.
          You’re the one whose TDS clouds his every post.
          You’re that one – really and for sure.

          BTW – for the next 90 days, comparisons of Trump to your candidate standards are irrelevant. Only comparisons of Trump to Hillary matter – 99% that one of them will be president.
          Trump won, Cruz lost.
          Trump is the candidate, Cruz is the afterthought.
          The race is between Trump and Hillary. Cruz is not on the ballot.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      Neither Senator Cruz nor Senator Paul is on the ballot this fall. That is what it is, whether one is happy about it or not.

      Of the two major party candidates, one favors increased and indeed near unlimited immigration, and the other favors restricting or stopping immigration from countries where we can’t screen the immigrants properly. I think I’ve stated fairly the positions of Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump.

      Now then: if limiting immigration, particularly immigration from countries that harbor substantial sentiment for radical Islamism, is important to a voter, that voter should vote for Mr. Trump. If such a voter casts a ballot for Ms. Clinton, decides to vote third-party, or decides not to vote at all, then immigration wasn’t that important to that voter.

      Anonamom is referencing those conservatives who will refuse to vote for Mr. Trump this fall even though they want to restrict immigration (which Mr. Trump favors), have a justice like Anton Scalia appointed to the vacant USSC seat (which Mr. Trump favors), review the various trade deals (which Mr. Trump says he will do), and have a more realistic foreign policy with regard to Iran and the Islamicists (which Mr. Trump says he will do).

      Anonamom is referencing the clear implication of such a refusal to vote for Mr. Trump by those conservatives: that doing so lets Ms. Clinton win, and thereby to do exactly the opposite of what the conservatives say they want.

      I don’t see a way to square this circle: a refusal to vote, or a vote for a third party, leads to Hillary Clinton winning the election.

      Perhaps you could address that issue civilly, Rags. You’re a lawyer: pretend we’re a jury and you have to be nice to us.

        Ragspierre in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2016 at 2:00 pm

        Ladies and gentlemen, despite the twisting of the words of the defendant by his counsel, the defendant is a fraud.

        You know it. I know it. Even his counsel knows it. Just look at him! The fraud is palpable. It hangs like a thick, disgusting cloud in the air. You can feel it! You can SEE it! You can smell it!

        Anonamom in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2016 at 2:39 pm

        Thank you, Dr. Steve, for stating more clearly and in more detail the intentions of my post. 🙂

        As for the “Perhaps you could address that issue civilly, Rags. You’re a lawyer: pretend we’re a jury and you have to be nice to us.” part, I hope that your suggestion works. Given that person’s juvenile obsession with profanity and insults, I’ve found it best just to skip reading his blather.

          Ragspierre in reply to Anonamom. | July 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

          Hey, he asked a question, I gave him exactly what my position would be.

          Nothing insulting or profane about it.

          The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Anonamom. | July 26, 2016 at 3:49 pm

          Ten upticks for your second paragraph.

          Milwaukee in reply to Anonamom. | July 26, 2016 at 5:59 pm

          Ragspierre, Sir.

          In November I will have a ballot and a chance to vote for the next President of the United States of America. I believe that you have, if anything, been too kind in your assessment of the character of Donald R. Trump. He is not only as awful as you say, but probably even worse. However horrible Donald R. Trump is, Hilary Rodham Clinton is more horribler. For whom would you suggest I vote?

          In the meantime, I will contact my local conservative congressman, and hope to help his re-election. My local city council has chosen to prevent Uber and Lyft, so I will try to work for some of them departing. I’m looking for smaller government, with less regulation.

          Tonight, though, the local place has $1 off 16 ounce drafts and 50 cent wings.

          Ragspierre in reply to Anonamom. | July 26, 2016 at 6:23 pm

          Milwaukee,

          Wish I could join you!

          I’ll vote for a good person for POTUS, and the best I can find down-ticket.

          I won’t vote for any Collectivist. Ever. Period.

        If I could believe a word he says….

        You have a good point, but I think one President, hopefully weakened, will give us four years of horror, while the other will destroy the Republican party and give us eternal horror. And while I think immigration is improtant, I do not think it trumps all.

          Olinser in reply to mzk. | July 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

          If you legitimately think Trump will be worse than Clinton, fine.

          I think you’re an idiot for thinking that given that Clinton has a proven track record of corruption, despotic tendencies, complete disregard for the law, and rank incompetence, while Trump is a pretty big question mark for what he’s actually going to do.

          But at least you acknowledge that you think Clinton is not as bad. The #NeverTrumpers spewing bullshit about ‘oh its not our fault if she gets elected’ are trying to escape the REQUIRED CONSEQUENCES of their petulance. We have a binary choice. Trump or Clinton. If you don’t want one, by definition you are fine with the other being President.

          Ragspierre in reply to mzk. | July 26, 2016 at 4:58 pm

          What an overflowing crock of shit!

          It isn’t ‘a binary choice’. That is one of the MOST stupid things people currently ape each other saying.

          IF it were, how come we get the choice to vote our conscience for NEITHER stinking shit sandwich? See…??? It isn’t “binary” at all.

          In taking the position I have, there is NOTHING to imply that one is better than the other. They are both AWFUL, and I won’t vote for either. Neither is worthy of my vote, and neither will have it.

        gospace in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2016 at 8:14 pm

        A really reasonable explantion of what voting means this year. How Dare you!? People want bluster and bomabast. You’ll never get through to people being calm and rational.

      Raggspierre :
      You couldn’t help yourself could you. Blow off the murdered old priest & make this outrage about yourself.

      There he stands Q. P. parrots in all his glory. Your acknowledged Flock-master.

      Squawk you followerer parrots ; squeal at an uncaring moon. It’s who all of you are.

        VaGentleman in reply to secondwind. | July 27, 2016 at 1:21 am

        Absolutely right, secondwind. Rags will never be a martyr for the conservative cause. He’s not that guy. He will, however, martyr conservativism so long as he gets to stand on the grave and declaim how he remained pure to ITS end. He is that guy.
        It’s all about rags.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | July 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

      Rags, who won the primary again, please let it go. I have a strong urge to go to Huffy Post every time I read your posts on this.

ISIS is just a pesky little nuisance to the power brokers. Stalin stated that one death is a tragedy, but numerous deaths just a statistic. I wonder if the leaders of the world are wishing only for statistics? To the collective, a few deaths here and there are acceptable losses for the greater good and with no real downside for those allowing this to happen. All it means is just a little more security hassle for them and life goes on comfortably.

Hollande sure sounds convincing…..at least until the next Saudi payment to him reaches the bank in Geneva.

    stevewhitemd in reply to persecutor. | July 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Let’s be fair to Mr. Hollande for a moment: there isn’t a lot he can do right now.

    France does not have the police / paramilitary / intelligence capability to track down the many, many Islamists in their midst. France is now about 7% Muslim, and finding the radicalized ones in that number is exceedingly difficult (whether it was smart to admit those immigrants is a question that precedes Mr. Hollande). They don’t have the manpower to track the ones they know about, and they know about only a fraction.

    Further, France has a legal system at least as cumbersome as ours. The lawyers there are as skilled as our own in gumming up the works when it comes to deportations and asylum. Good luck with fixing that even if Mr. Hollande had the will and the parliamentary majority to do so.

    France, Europe, the U.S., and other countries are going to have to make a decision: whether we’re to become more like Japan and South Korea. Those two countries don’t have an Islamist or immigrant problem, because they don’t have hardly any immigration. You want to live in those countries long term, good luck.

    France would have to turn its back on a hundred years of its own law and history. That’s not easy.

      alaskabob in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm

      That puts pro-jihad sympathizers at 1% of population. The Germans calculate it takes 50 full time officers to keep track of one (1) potential terrorist in the making. France already will have major attacks they can’t see coming.

      gospace in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2016 at 8:25 pm

      Hollande can do a lot. First, round up all Muslim religious leaders and kick them out. Doesn’t matter whether they’re radicalized or not- they’re all part of the problem. They teach and spread islam. Then, round up all known radicals, and kill them or export them. Kill is fine with me. No trial needed. Then, any further acts of violence, round up ALL muslims and export them. Because they didn’t get the idea from the previous actions.

      Extreme? Yeah. So what? Islam is at war with the non-islamic world. Has been since, well, it started. The war has ebbed and flowed, but never ended. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, Zoroastrianists, and apparently all but muslims can live in peaceful co-existence with each other in a westernized world. Add islam, get violence. Reality 101, taught in real life, not the ivory towers.

We are not at war with Islam but Islam seems to be at war with everybody.

    Milwaukee in reply to MattMusson. | July 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Islam is frequently at war with itself. If you are not the “right” kind of Mohammedan, the other kind feels entitle to kill you. So there is the whole Sunni/Shia thing. But if you are only a “moderate” Muslim, a more devout Muslim might also feel you need to die. In 1980, while I was living in Malaysia, they passed laws so all Muslim men were required to attend mosque at least once a week. Absences would result in warnings, fines, and possible imprisonment.

    Mohammedans, like leftist, want everybody to toe the line. A conservative who doesn’t like guns doesn’t own a gun. A leftist-progressive-Democrat who doesn’t like guns doesn’t own one and doesn’t want you to own one. In the same way, “good” or devout Muslims want all to follow Islam. If you are a non-Muslim, and eat in public in the daylight, can be punished with warnings, fines, imprisonment, and beatings.

      Arminius in reply to Milwaukee. | July 27, 2016 at 1:39 am

      “Islam is frequently at war with itself. If you are not the ‘right’ kind of Mohammedan, the other kind feels entitle to kill you.”

      You are of course correct. That’s exactly how it works. Forget soccer, the favorite sport in the Islamic world is takfir, or “excommunicating” other muslims for being either the wrong kind of muslims or not muslim enough in their judge’s eye even if they belong to the right sect of Islam.

      Unfortunately for the “moderate” or “less devout” kind of muslim, the “right” kind of muslim who feels entitled to kill you for your “innovation,” holding an unauthorized opinion of what Islam commands based on your personal reading of the texts, or mere laxity included their prophet. Muhammad most certainly claimed the right to kill the hypocrites and apostates. And did, thereby setting the example for groups like ISIS. Moderate or less devout forms of Islam do not survive when they or even serious enforcers of Sharia law move into the neighborhood. Moderate Islam doesn’t have a theological leg to stand on.

      As I say in one of my book-length comments below, there are lots of ways for a Muslim to apostatize. Apostasy works very differently in Islam than it does in Christianity. Some Muslims do formally renounce their religion and become either atheists or adherents of other religions. Most do not do anything like that, although there are a lot of secret Christians in the Islamic world (more than you may suspect) who would certainly be branded apostates if they were ever to have their covers blown.

      There are actually six, not five, pillars of Islam considering the highest human source in Islam, Muhammad, declared waging violent jihad against non=Muslims was a religious duty required of every Muslim male physically capable of doing so (and those not physically able had to at least wish they could wage violent holy war against the kuffar).

      Once a person becomes a Muslim by reciting the Shahada, or Islamic profession of faith in Allah and Muhammad and the first pillar of Islam, one becomes either a hypocrite or apostate by failing to perform the other five pillars; prayer, tithing by paying tax to Muslim religious authorities, fasting from sunrise to sunset during Ramadan, and making the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives if capable of doing so, and as previously mentioned (the violent kind against non muslims in which you get scarred in battle and in which “your horse is wounded” according to Muhammad, not the “personal struggle to become a better muslim and person” in which you commit to rereading the quran or working out at L.A. fitness or lose weight).

      The line between those muslims who are apostates and those who are merely hypocrites isn’t at all clear and certainly moves around quite a bit. Apostates have abandoned Islam, while hypocrites are muslims who know what they are supposed to do as muslims but don’t do it. Failing to attend the required prayers at the mosque is one of those things that could go either way depending on how harsh your judge and jury are and whether or not your absences have been noticed and you have been warned. Also the Muslim sources, or at leat those who transliterated them from Arabic to English don’t use the terms clearly or with any regularity. Consequently the distinction between the two is blurry but hypocrisy is best described as misdemeanor level deviation from Islamic orthodoxy which will only get you whipped half to death while apostasy is felony level deviation in addition to outright renunciation of Islam which rates a death sentence, and muslims are commanded to fight both the hypocrites and apostates. And again there are many ways to apostatize, more than westerners imagine, but failing to perform the required prayers at the mosque are one of the first ways that leap to mind.

      Technically all muslims are supposed to pray at the mosque anytime they can hear the unamplified voice of the muezzin calling out the time of prayers. That could be five times a day everyday if you live close enough. But at the very least the Friday prayer service.

      Muhammad was a harsh judge; he wanted to burn those who failed to show up for prayer alive.

      Sahih al Bukhari volume ten, the “Book of Call to Prayers,” chapter 34, “The superiority of the ‘Isha’ prayer in congregation:”

      ” Narrated Abu Huraira:

      The Prophet (ﷺ) said, ‘No prayer is heavier upon the hypocrites than the Fajr and the `Isha’ prayers and if they knew what is in them (in reward), they would have attended them, even if (it was) crawling. Certainly, I felt the urge to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) so that he would pronounce Iqama, then order a man to lead the people (in prayer), then take a flame of fire so that I burn (the houses) upon those who had not left for the prayer yet.’

      Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 657
      In-book reference : Book 10, Hadith 51
      USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 11, Hadith 626
      (deprecated numbering scheme)”

      It’s astute of you to call muslims Mohammadens as muslims put far more faith in Muhammad then they do in allah, and they pray to Muhammad at least as much as they do to allah, and obey Muhammad’s commands far more strictly than they even do allah’s. This is particularly obvious with Sunni muslims, whose English name derives from what they call themselves in Arabic; Ahlus Sunnah, or the adherents of the sunnah or example of Muhammad. But the Shia do it just as much. You will never see a Muslim crowd fly into a murderous rage over some depiction of God in a western publication or on western TV. They only do that if it’s done to Muhammad, which ought to tell everyone who they really worship.

      It’s not clear if Muhammad himself ever burned people alive. But at least two of the supposedly rightly guided caliphs who succeeded him certainly did. Especially Abu Bakr, the first rightly guided caliph. He fought the Apostate Wars when people tried to leave Islam after Muhammad died or simply didn’t pay zakat, or tax, to him when they refused to acknowledge his authority. There are plenty of stories of him burning apostates alive. According to the Muslim sources, including their most authoritative sources the two sahih or genuine collections of hadith which rank second to the Quran as sacred and which form the major part of the Sunnah for Sunnis today, the fourth and final rightly guided caliph Ali also burned apostates alive. There are no stories about the two rightly guided caliphs bracketed by Abu Bakr and Ali, Umar and Uthman. But that isn’t necessarily evidence they never burned apostates alive. It may very well be that they did but observers merely found the fact unremarkable.

      The current Abu Bakr, al Baghdadi of ISIS, is following his role model’s example very closely. And Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali are supposed to be examples for Sunnis (the Shia only use Ali as an example) to emulate. While the Quran commands muslims follow their prophet’s example in all things, their prophet Muhammad commanded all muslims to follow the example of those four caliphs as well in his Sunnah.

      Abu Bakr al Baghdadi did not miss the lesson, he’s not the only one, and those Malaysian muslims are lucky they can only be fined or imprisoned. For now.

      Arminius in reply to Milwaukee. | July 27, 2016 at 1:45 am

      “A leftist-progressive-Democrat who doesn’t like guns doesn’t own one and doesn’t want you to own one.”

      I have to disagree with you here, though. Lots of gun grabbing leftist progressive Democrats own guns and often have CCLs despite professing to hate guns.

      They just hate guns when they’re in the hands of people who aren’t powerful, politically connected, and who aren’t leftist progressive Democrats.

France has been failing to respect the rule of law with as it applies to Muslim thugs and Islamists for years. There are no-go zones in Paris, and Friday-night carbeques, for years, now. The French solution was not to stop the violence, but to stop the news stories about it. It is readily foreseeable that, with enhanced numbers of imported thugs, the violence will spread to other venues and victims.

This is exactly what BLM has been demanding, and it will be just as effective for curbing violence in predominantly black neighborhoods.

The rule of law includes not only fair enforcement of the laws against criminals that are captured, but also protection of NON-criminals that live in vulnerable sections of our cities. Without that, we will have the same kind of chaos that France has. We have made a start toward this awful state of affairs in places like Chicago, Ferguson, Baltimore and Detroit.

The question resolves to this: are our poor or black or muslim citizens less worthy of the protections of the law? Are they not entitled to quiet enjoyment of their own homes and businesses? If so, I submit we no longer have a rule of law, nor any claim to our ideal of “liberty and justice for all.”

“The United Slates condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific terrorist attack today at a Catholic church Normandy, France.”

Where are these ‘strongest possible terms’ of condemnation? It appears that the NSC spokesperson need not bother to actually write a condemnation.

    Solomon in reply to MSO. | July 26, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Threaten to send Paul Simon a la James Taylor. But not to France this time — to Mecca.

Will the Pope do anything to protect his priests from being tortured to death on film while inside the house of God?

lolololololololololololololololololololol

New Pope please.

    Humphrey's Executor in reply to rotten. | July 26, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Good question. Hopefully he’ll live up to the finest traditions of the Jesuits.

    VaGentleman in reply to rotten. | July 27, 2016 at 1:40 am

    I note, sadly, that all is not well in the house of Rome. There is no more Catholic country than Poland.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/26/on-eve-pope-francis-visit-to-poland-country-refuses-red-carpet-treatment.html

    “Pope Francis is set to arrive Wednesday in Poland, but the homeland of Saint Pope John Paul II – Francis’ most popular modern-day predecessor — is not rolling out the red carpet for the pontiff whose social agenda has alienated many in the conservative nation.

    The pope, who took 12 Syrian refugees back to the Vatican with him after visiting a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos last April, has called upon European nations to admit more Muslim refugees from war zones in the Middle East and Afghanistan.”

A small town priest has been murdered in front of his congregation and on video in the middle of celebrating Mass — all in the name of the religion of peace. Christians have a very long list of faithful who were martyred for the goodness they embodied. Perhaps now we in the West can begin to appreciate the long and unrelenting terror being visited upon Mid-East Christians and Jews. Before rushing off to bicker about immigration policy, maybe we could take time to put ourselves in the place of these tortured people. OF GODS AND MEN is an excellent movie portraying the same drama. And then there is the amazing story of Muslims shielding Christians in a recent attack http://wpo.st/Vqlo1 .

It’s yet another vile terrorist attack committed by the same vile terrorists that France continues to import more of everyday.

Such a mystery why these vile terrorist attacks keep happening . . . .

ugottabekiddinme | July 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

Any word from the White House or Her Thighness on what the attackers’ motive might possibly have been? I have not kept up with French language Youtube videos.

Anti-native, 1. Hamel, 0.

A battle lost, and the war continues.

At least Donald claims to be a Republican. This hopefully means that if he were president, the press would treat him as a hostile witness, questioning every thing he says.

Paul Ryan needs to be primaryed.

“The United Slates condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific terrorist attack next Sunday at a Catholic church in Roanoke, VA.”

The plan. Brought to you by the geniuses who remain willfully confused about the motives of someone who would murder a priest in his own church, on video, then toward the police waiting outside with guns drawn shouting “allahu akbar.”

Surah 9:111 At-Tawbah (The Repentance)

“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that THEY WILL HAVE PARADISE. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they KILL and ARE KILLED. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”

Kind of clears up the question of motive, doesn’t it?

Also, a pet peeve of mine. Allahu akbar does not mean God is great. If a muslim wanted to merely say their allah is great that would be allahu kebir. Allahu akbar uses the superlative and comparative form of kebir. It means allah, the god of Islam, is greater. Greater than what? Greater than your God, in this case Jesus Christ. But it’s important to remember that while it can mean almost anything depending on context it is first and foremost a battle cry. It means they will conquer in the name of allah because allah is greater than anything you may be fighting for.

When jihadis use it they use it emphasize the superiority of allah and islam over all things. So when you watch those amusing videos of jihadis screwing up and getting killed due to their own stupidity, such as that video of jihadis taking turns breaking cover to fire a machinegun at Syrian soldiers and firing it from the exact same spot out in the open just a step or two from the building the rest of the group is hiding behind, you’ll hear algulahu akbars at all phases. You’ll hear the “let’s hope this works” allahu akbars as they load the machinegun, the “good luck, achmed” allahu akbars as the first idiot steps out into the open to fire at the soldiers’ position, and the triumphal allahu akbars as he is shooting at the soldier then steps back behind the building unscathed. Finally there are the “aww shit” and “holy f&ck” allahu akbars as the third or fourth jihadi to try his luck steps out from cover and almost immediately gets shot in the head.

Basically in all cases it’s meant to reassure each other that no matter what happens it’s in allah’s hands, and since they’re fighting in allah’s cause (surah 9:111) they can’t lose. Allah is greater than what the other side is fighting for. The one thing it can not mean is how it’s normally translated into English. It can not mean that allah is great.

“France does not have the police / paramilitary / intelligence capability to track down the many, many Islamists in their midst.”

Neither do we. The one advantage the French have over us, though, is they do not deliberately blind themselves to the fact that these people are motivated by their religion, which has never been about peace.

As the rest of the world has figured out it’s actually not that hard to figure out the motives of these muslim killers. It’s their religion. Muslim Brotherhood (MB)front groups, such as the Hamas-linked CAIR (and keep in mind Hamas is simply the Gazan branch of the MB) know this as well so they’ve come up with an ingenious plan to make sure people don’t find out. Call them names, particularly the one they made up just for the purpose making sure people don’t look for the truth. Islamophobe. Racist and bigot are also popular STFU/don’t-don’t-listen-to-this-hatemonger truth killers.

I’ll try not to write a wall-O-text comment but I may not be able to control myself. Muslims have been using the same playbook for 1400 years. It’s just not that hard to figure out if you’re willing to put up with the name calling. The Quran is important, yes, but you have to know how to read it as it’s not arranged in any sensible order but rather length. Except for Surah one, which is the fatihah prayer and very short, the longest surahs or chapters are up front as they contain the most ayat or verses. The verses themselves are not long. And of course the shortest chapters are at the end.

Surah nine, which is obviously one of the early chapters in the Quran among the 114 chapters generally found in most Qurans (there is actually some dispute among the earliest muslim authorities, among Quranic scholars, and actually conflict among the earlier texts, although muslims insist that the “miraculous” preservation of the Quran is proof of its divine origin). But chapter nine is also accepted as the last substantive chapter “revealed” to Muhammad. I say substantive because there may be a chapter that came after it, but that isn’t the consensus opinion and in any case it doesn’t say much about anything and in fact may only be a fragment (so much for that miraculous preservation again).

You also must understand the doctrine of abrogation, which the MB front groups deny exists at all. But they are of course practicing the doctrine of taqqiyah, which they also deny exists. But both doctrines are in the quran itself.

Chapter 2 verse 106 is where you’ll find the doctrine of abrogation, which is essentially the quran’s own guidance no how to read and understand itself.

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”

As the last substantive chapter Muhammad delivered to his followers, chapter nine constitutes the final marching orders to Muslims. If there is anything in chapter nine that conflicts with anything in earlier chapters, those verses are abrogated by the verses in chapter nine. This is a well established fact of Islamic scholarship. So much so that a
Sudanese cleric, one those near mythic “reformers” and “moderates” who really are trying to change both the theory and practice of Islam into a more peaceful Islam that more closely resembles the Islam that only exists in the imaginations of people like Barack Obama, David Cameron, Angele Merkel and the entire western media, was executed when he tried to argue it should be the other way around. The chronologically early verses which tend to be more peaceful should abrogate the later more violent verses. That, you see is also apostasy. A great many more things constitute apostasy in Islam then most westerners realize. One way to apostocize under most understandings is to deny a single verse of the quran. Muslims consider the quran to be the eternal, uncreated, and unfiltered word of allah, and that Sudanese cleric is most definitely either denying that allah meant what he clearly said in verse 2:106 or if he did muslims should just ignore what allah clearly said and do the opposite. This is important for understanding groups like ISIS. While Obama imagines he has this great argument that ISIS can not be Islamic as its primary victims are fellow muslims, ISIS does not consider the people it kills to be anything other than apostates or hypocrites and has the better theological argument as the quran commands believers to wage war against those to categories of renegade former muslims as they would against any other non-believers.

Chapter 3 verse 28 is where you’ll find the doctrine of taqqiyah.

“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.”

Any muslim who has authentic non-Muslims as friends (allies; the Arabic word has both meanings) is no longer a muslim (has nothing with allah). In other words, an apostate (this explains a lot of honor killings in the US and Europe as a lot of young westernized muslims apostatize in exactly this way particularly duaghters who have non-Muslim boyfriends, which the MB front groups will like terrorism deny honor killing has anything to do with islam). But when muslims are outnumbered they are allowed to pretend to be friends/allies with non-Muslims (taking precaution against them in prudence) out of concern for their own safety and that of the ummah or muslim community. This requires lying to the “filthy kuffar.” Most western muslisms, to be sure, are not aware that if they have real non-Muslim friends they aren’t muslims anymore, so if you have muslim friends I’m not saying they’re being anything but genuine in their friendship, but the imams or CAIR leaders you see on TV to counter people like Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes are perfectly aware of the allah’s prohibition. And they practice taqqiyah very promiscuously when they do attempt to counter people like Spencer and Pipes. Who are of course Islamophobe; in other words, telling the truth about Islam which is easy to verify by going to muslims’ own sources.

The most important source for the 85% or so of muslims who are Sunni is not the quran but the Sunnah; that’s where sunnis derive their name as they are “adherents of the Sunnah.” Note: they don’t call themselves adherents of the quran. The Sunnah is best understood as the example set by Muhammad, which as the “prophet of allah” the quran commands muslims to emulate if they wish to enter paradise. It has two components; the biographical or sirah literature about Muhammad has become less important to Muslims than it was earlier in their history and the teachings of muhammad or the ahadith which now comprises the largest component.

Most of the squid ink the apologists for Islam and jihadists spew in attempted defense of their religion consists of nonsense and lies. But these people would accuse me of being an Islamophobe for quoting single verses. They would say I’m taking them “out of context.” Here they do have a point as context is important. And I am always happy to provide more context than those people like or can stomach because the more context you put quranic verses in the more it becomes that they mean exactly what they appear to mean. You’ll find almost all the context you need in the Sunnah or if you’re dealing with the Shia their functional equivalent of it. I say almost all because it’s also important to have some knowledge of early muslim history. After all there are several individual hadith in which Muhammad declares his companions the best generation of Muslims who will ever live and commands his followers to not only his example but that of his immediate successors, the first four rightly guided caliphs. They were of course rightly guided because they knew Muhammad personally as his closest companions and as such derived special “wisdom” from Muhammad.

So if you know some early islamic history you’ll learn how this best generation of muslims in general and the first four rightly guided caliphs in particular put muhammad’s teachings into practice. If you’ve seen ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda et al in action you’ve already seen that movie but you still need the historical evidence to back yourself up if you’re going to make that claim. The apologists for Islam can only deny, deny, deny, but all the evidence is on your side should you choose to point out that ISIS is getting islam right. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is in fact following almost precisely in the footsteps of his namesake, the original Abu Bakr and first of the four rightly guided caliphs. In a argument over what constitutes true islam between some guy who apparently didn’t pay attention to the constitutional law courses at his ivy league law school and the guy with a PhD in Islamic theology from Baghdad university, go with the PhD from Baghdad every time.

Now nearly all of the above applies only to the Sunni. The Shia have their own functional equivalent of the Sunnah although they don’t call it that and in fact I’ve never heard one term that applies to it all. Sunnis and Shia consider each other apostates (in Islam it’s apostapalooza everyday in any direction you look). In fact the Shia consider not only today’s Sunnis to be apostates, they consider the three caliphs prior to Ali to be usurpers, and any muslim who fought against Ali to be apostates. This would include Muhammad’s child bride and favorite bride Aisha, who was the first to lead an army against Ali at the Battle of the Camel in which tens of thousands of muslims were killed fighting each other (I suppose if the Obama metric of anyone who kills muslims can’t possibly be a muslim themselves is correct than nobody not even the muslims Muhammad himself claimed would be the best generation of muslims has ever been muslim, of course Obama is here as in all things full of shiite). They have particular venom for Aisha as a result, even claiming she murdered Muhammad, and certainly won’t use her as a source of ahadith while she figures prominently in the Sunni collections. Nor will they use any of the other first-generation muslims they consider disreputable or apostates because of their opposition to Ali. So their collections of hadith appear quite different as a result. In addition to the biographies of Muhammad they also study their biographies of their rightly guided imams; five, seven, or twelve depending on what flavor of Shia (they’re all awful flavors, but most Shia are twelvers like the Iranians). But all Muslims pretty much end up with the same understanding as any other Muslim. You simply can’t base a religion on the example of Muhammad and the Quran and not end up in a different place; “Gay pride” festivities are pretty much the same in Tehran and Raqqaa where the gays end up just as dead if they’re thrown off buildings or hung from cranes.

The point of all this writing is that there is quite a lot you have to know if you’re going to be a successful counter terrorism intelligence analyst, if you’re going police against Islamic terror, if you’re going to guard against Islamic terrorism by vetting muslim immigrants, asylum seekers, or just visa applicants and visitors. You can’t vet them if you aren’t allowed to ask the right questions or more importantly don’t even know what the right questions are. In order to do any of these jobs and more you must have at least a basic understanding of Islam. You don’t necessarily have to be an expert yourself, but you must at least have been trained by experts willing to be honest about Islam, and access to training materials written or prepared by honest experts.

But recall the MB front groups brand honest experts willing to tell the truth about Islam as Islamophobes. In this administration they have found the willing partner of their wet dreams. People like Spencer and Pipes who used to train the FBI and other organizations have been banished. It’s hard to know who exactly is now providing that training, but we can be sure they either have been chosen by or are members of those very same MB front groups that have demanded all references to Islam be removed from official counter terror training materials, veto power over any future counter terror training materials, and control over our counter terror intel collection efforts. Groups like CAIR which, while they’re training our intelligence and security people how to miss clues when would-be jihadis like Mateen in Orlando or the Tsarnaevs in Boston are practically firing flare guns to attract police scrutiny, are telling American muslims not to cooperate with police investigations. And just so you know, the are almost all taking CAIR’s advice.

The French at least have not similarly handicapped themselves. We have all the same problems they do, but we have an even bigger problem and it’s self inflicted. It’s Barack Obama and political correctness as defined by the jihadis themselves.

In case you have any more need of the level of denial the western press is willing to indulge in rather than face the truth of these jihadists’ true religious motivation, here’s the headline for a Reuters story supposedly reporting in the Ansbach, GE, suicide bomber.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-blast-minister-idUSKCN105073

“Syrian man denied asylum killed in German blast: Bavarian minister”

If you don’t read the article, if you just read the headline, you’ll never know that he was the suicide bomber. Instead you might get the impression that he was just a victim. And not just a victim but the “poor guy” had been victimized three ways. First by the war in Syria that turned him into a refugee, then by the heartless German government which denied his asylum request, and finally he was victimized by this faceless “German blast.” That is clearly the impression the headline writer would like to leave you with, if you are one of many LIVs who just skim headlines.

And it isn’t as if the writers who wrote the al Reuters article want you to get a much more accurate idea of why this Syrian muslim, who videoed himself swearing allegiance to the Islamic state “in the name of Allah,” tried to blow himself up with as many “infidels” as possible, either. Al Reuters never even reports that “Syrian man” was a muslim. They can’t even bring themselves to say that someone who straps a suicide bomb to himself and tried to get into a crowded music festival even wanted to take other people with him, calling that unclear. Although to be fair to al Reuters they may be quoting German officials on that point, and German officials have certainly proven themselves to just as enormous liars and/or deliberate idiots when it comes to Islamic terrorism as the members of the press.

The BBC had a similar headline before the humiliation of being the target of so much ridicule and derision forced them to change it to a slightly if only just barely more descriptive headline. You can see screen caps of the original headlines here:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/msm-paints-muslim-suicide-bomber-syrian-migrant-killed-german-blast

I can only go to the original source for the al Reuters headline. I always do that because as with James Comey’s reputation for integrity I can’t and won’t vouch for the reliability of websites like Truth Revolt. But the screen cap for the al Reuters headline certainly is spot on, and that headline is the kind of crap the BBC would and has produced when trying to play the “no Islam to see here, folks, move along” game.

I can hardly wait for the whitewash/rewrite of history in this case in the form of a headline that reads “Two Young Churchgoers of Middle Eastern Ethnicity Killed in Hail of French Police Gunfire in Normandy.”

Since a priest was killed inside a church while conducting a religious ceremony does that mean that all mosques are fair game on Fridays?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend