Image 01 Image 03

CNN Expert: Terror Threat ‘Modest . . . I Don’t Worry About Terrorism’

CNN Expert: Terror Threat ‘Modest . . . I Don’t Worry About Terrorism’

Mudd says tight restrictions on Muslim immigration would give ISIS what it wants

Don’t look for Phil Mudd to be joining the Trump anti-terrorism team anytime soon . . . Mudd, a CNN counterterrorism analyst, declared today that the threat of terrorism is “modest.” When it comes to young people, Mudd said that he worries about gangs and drugs: “I don’t worry about terrorism.”

Mudd also argued that tight restrictions on Muslim immigration would be giving ISIS want it wants by setting ISIS up as the counterbalance to the West and the defender of Islam. Mudd apparently believes that allowing a freer flow of Muslim refugees into the United States, as Hillary wanted, would appease ISIS rather than giving it the opening to carry out more attacks. ISIS is not interested in good relations. It wants only to destroy the West and establish its caliphate. People like Mudd, whom CNN chooses as its “expert,” apparently don’t understand that.

Mudd adopts a dry statistical approach, arguing that gangs and drugs cause more American deaths than terrorism. But as bad as is the opiod plague, it does not pose the same kind of convulsive threat to the very fabric of our nation and culture as does Islamic terrorism.

Note: Co-host Camerota teed up Mudd’s message against tight immigration restrictions. Rather than asking whether such restrictions are desirable, she claimed to have heard that they “do more harm than good” and invited Mudd to explain why.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Phil, President-elect trump has basically said that this [latest terror attacks] is proof that he was right when he was asked about a Muslim ban. It sounds as though he’s sort of reinforcing his call for that in the United States. I know that you are not a political pundit but from law-enforcement standpoint, we have heard that that does more harm than good. Can you explain why?

PHIL MUDD: Look, we have an adversary that is ISIS and its predecessor Al Qaeda who have a simple goal. They want to portray themselves among potential followers as peers with us on the military battlefield, on the political battlefield. They want to draw us into a fight so they can tell the rest of the Islamic world who doesn’t believe with them: hey! The Americans are our enemies, they invaded Iraq. They are in Syria. They are bombing our civilians. We are your defenders. As soon as we say yes, that we have the keep the entirety of the Muslim faith out of our country, ISIS will use to this to say we told you so. We are the protectors. We are the only adversary fighting these people. Please align with us. We can’t allow them to have what they want. That this is a fight of civilizations. That’s the Muslim world against the Christian world. It’s not a political statement. It’s a statement from me with a simple purpose. Don’t give the enemy what they want, Alisyn. It’s as simple as that.

CHRIS CUOMO: Right. But it’s a little bit of a feel-good policy here. People feel safe when they believe they’re being kept insulated from the threat. Which leads to the question, how big is the threat? How many people are there like this guy if you categorize him as someone who is known, who is trying to get into the bad game and who winds up being in the radar of the authorities?

MUDD: Chris, the threat is modest. It’s not that big if you put it in context. My question for people who get emotional and political about this is, if you want to have a fight, give me facts and give me numbers. If you look at the state of violent crime in this country which has been on the decline for years, if you look at why that violent crime happens and who commits it, that’s gangs and drugs, if you look post-9/11 at deaths from opiods. I’m going to visit a friend myself this weekend who lost a son to synthetic opioids a few weeks ago. Those deaths in inner-city America dwarf what happens with terrorism.

We will get more terrorism in this country and my question will be, do you want to look at those incidents in isolation or do you want to ask what is a threat to an American child? And as a counterterrorism professional, I’ll tell you, with ten nieces and nephews. I worry about gangs, drugs and synthetic opioids. And I don’t worry about terrorism.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


thats why idiots like this MUSTN’T be allowed anywhere near counter terrorism/extremism programmes!!!

one would think WWII would have taught these turkeys a lesson, appeasement doesn’t work, never has never will.

Immigration control? Can’t have it!
Gun control? Absolutely must have it; except, perhaps, for immigrants.

I wondered ‘what sort of person says something so patently retarded’ so I went and looked up his bio. He was a counter terror analyst at the CIA in the years running right up to the 9/11 attacks.

Typical prog…His unicorn-fart-huffing delusions cost the country dearly but even when faced with the cold hard evidence that his stupid ideas are shit he doesn’t have the basic shame or decency to shut up and spare us the incessant BS.

I’d like to think that part of the problem is that these eejits just haven’t studied any history, but I’d guess that they actually did and just took all the wrong lessons from it.

My favorite “fake” quote from the opening sequences of Andromeda: “Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it; those who fail to learn history correctly-why they are simply doomed.”
–Achem Dro’hm, The Illusion of Historical Truth CY 4971

Islam doesn’t care about Western feelz. Islam will roll over everything in the way of its world wide caliphate and destroy it. People like this “expert” will go to their death or enslavement wondering why their attempts at appeasement didn’t work, never admitting, even to themselves, that the *only* way to have avoided their fate was active resistance at the beginning. No matter how much red meat they throw to the crocodile, it *will* eventually eat them too. The sooner the West realizes this and starts fighting back, the less bloodshed there will be on both sides.

They still don’t get it.

There was an election. A big expensive one.

The surrender-monkeys lost. And they lost because of this issue. Resistance to the government-abetted invasion of America by alien people with hostile cultures is what put Trump on the map right from the start of his campaign. The obvious fact that some of these alien people with hostile cultures—it hardly matters exactly how many—also have homicidal intentions merely adds a bit of urgency; so now the luxury of leisure is not an option.

Now, shut up. No more talking, no more sophistry. Time for some long-overdue action.

    liberalinsight in reply to tom swift. | December 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    There are a lot of ways to fight besides guns. Just because they see the world as “we against them” it does not force us to see it in the same terms.
    YA, you won 26% of registered voters, I doubt you have consensus on a single issue. I seem to remember lot of folks claiming they were voting against HRC, not for Putin’s man.

      DaveGinOly in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 7:33 pm

      When someone sees the situation as “us against them,” you’re already behind the curve because they’ve framed the relationship for you.

      George Bush said we’re not fighting a holy war. I would have liked to have told him, “Our enemies are fighting a holy war. The nature of the conflict has already been defined. We are in a holy war whether we like it or not. Denial doesn’t change the character of the conflict one whit.”

      You are in denial, as was Neville Chamberlain.

      Walker Evans in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 8:29 pm

      Islamic Supremacists have a single goal; to establish the New Caliphate and make Islam the only political/legal/social/religious system in the world. Period. They have no interest in “getting along” with anyone. Mohamed instructed them to spread his twisted ideas by any means but he especially encouraged using the sword, as he did. There is no argument that can be used to dissuade them. The only way to stop them is by the sword or, in this century, whatever we can bring against them to include guns, explosives, and yes, even knives and swords!

      You need to learn a bit about Islam, and in particular its most ardent adherents, the Islamic Supremacists, the one who consider Mohamed the Perfect Man, to be emulated in all things! It is clear you know very little about the subject; either that, or you are one of the fools and poltroons who believe living under Sharia would be preferable to resistance. I will not convert (or revert in their view), will not pay the jizyah, and will not while there is breath left in my body allow my children to be subjugated to this perversion.

      This is me in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 8:47 pm

      LiberalInsight said:

      “YA, you won 26% of registered voters, I doubt you have consensus on a single issue.”

      What difference at this point does it make?

‘Mudd.’ Couldn’t pick a better name for this fool – he has enough of it on his face.

Mr. Mudd is also Mr. Irrelevant.

Mudd is a plain idiot!

What did FBI Director say about terrorism:

“FBI Director James Comey told U.S. Senators on Tuesday that intelligence and law enforcement agencies are concerned a “terrorist diaspora” will occur globally in a few years after the Islamic State loses control.”

“The challenge will be: Through the fingers of that crush are going to come hundreds of very, very dangerous people. They will not all die on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq. There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we’ve never seen before.”

You’d think, that with her very welcoming attitude toward muslim invaders, that ISIS would be cool with Germany. But it doesn’t seem to have worked out that way.

ugottabekiddinme | December 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

Point 1: Drugs and gangs may kill more people, but the dangers posed by drugs and gangs are also relatively easier to avoid than some fanatic running shoppers down at a mall with a truck.

Point 2: The threat is not that big if “put in context?” The attacks that led to the murders of 3,000 people on 9/11/2001 also weren’t that big if put in the context of a nation of 300 million, but that just slightly [sarc off] understates the impact.

Point 3: Methinks Mudd is an apt description for this moron’s brains as well.

    liberalinsight in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | December 22, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Suggesting that it is easier to avoid addiction than a Muslim terrorist, kind of suggests that those who became addicted set out to be that way. Of all the stories of how drug users got hooked, I have not heard the one “I really wanted my life ruined by becoming an addict”.

      DaveGinOly in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 7:38 pm

      An addict makes a personal choice to start taking drugs (while probably not intending to become an addict). Most people choose not to start down that road – taking, or not taking, that road is a choice each of us has. OTOH, a victim of terror is someone who is in the wrong place at the wrong time, who has no way of knowing this beforehand, and therefor has no choice in the matter. The addict makes a willful choice concerning his own behavior, the terror victim is at the mercy of choices imposed by others.

How has Europe’s immigration policies worked out for them, Mr Dipstick?

There have already been several Islamoterrorist playbooks made public which state, in no uncertain terms, that their plan is to invade the west through immigration and establish multiple cells here.

So limiting Muslim immigration gives the terrorists exactly what they want? No, Mudd, it is the exact opposite of what they want. What the terrorists want is what you’re proposing: unlimited immigration.

    liberalinsight in reply to Observer. | December 22, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    I can’t believe you read the explanation. The goal of ISIS is to be portrayed as “Us (ISIS) vs Them (the western Christian nations). ISIS wants to make this propaganda position reinforced, so that those who feel oppressed and discriminated against will have a side to fight on.
    What other recruitment tool do they have? “Come here and have some self appointed religious wakko beat you for a morals indiscretion”? “We are getting our asses kicked in Iraq, come die for nothing”?
    The goal of terrorism is to get people to do exactly what you are suggesting, giving a dedicated politically powerless minority a international stage.

      DaveGinOly in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 7:43 pm

      So, the terrorists would actually support a crackdown on immigration into Europe because that’s exactly what they want?What rubbish!

      What is wrong with you? You are imposing your own values and beliefs on jihadis, and that is simply nuts. No, they don’t recruit by saying, hey, how cool would it be to come and be droned by Obama?

      They instead appeal to the religious convictions of Muslims who are ripe for radicalization by using the prophet’s own words to get them to sacrifice themselves for the caliphate.

      Your logic suggests that World War II kamikaze pilots couldn’t have existed because no one in America or the West would be one. Gee, who would join a team that said, “Hey! Let’s all fly into ships and planes and sometimes just the deep blue sea and kill ourselves while destroying hugely expensive war planes! Woot!” Well, no one. Of course. D’oh.

      Following your logic, since this sounds silly to our ears, kamikaze pilots simply didn’t exist.

      It’s a bit horrifying that anyone can be so ridiculous and still manage to sound like he thinks he’s superior to his clear intellectual betters on this site.

Got it…it’s “modest” so we do NOTHING to keep it from happening. In fact, let’s facilitate it!

Hell, given enough time maybe we can bump it up to “serious”!

    liberalinsight in reply to MJN1957. | December 22, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Just because we don’t drop the A bomb on babies, it is unfair to suggest we are doing nothing. The goal of terrorists is to get the wrong people attacked, arrested, or oppressed. The best way to fight terror is quality police work, not shooting innocents.

      DaveGinOly in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 7:49 pm

      That sounds very reasonable, but from what you’ve written here you’re suggesting that the “quality police work” should be done here, and not at the border. Why should we do the “quality police work” after the problem enters the country? Do you decide which people shouldn’t have been allowed into your home before or after you allow them entry?

      Walker Evans in reply to liberalinsight. | December 22, 2016 at 8:46 pm

      Once again you completely misstate the goal of Islamic Supremacists: It is the conquest of the entire world – nothing less. If this sounds like the ideology of zealots to you … then you’re right!

      “Just because we don’t drop the A bomb on babies”

      Actually prog moron, we did. And we will again. And if you do not want to see this happen then we had best keep the terrorists out of here. Only morons of the first order justify letting killers into the country with drug overdose or gang activity. One has nothing to do with the other. We can choose to fight the gangs and deal with drug use while at the same time excluding the importation of yet more savage barbarians intent upon destruction.

      All the blood will be on your hands.

Mr. Mudd, why shouldn’t we can use the same immigration policies and tools to keep gang members, drugs AND Muslim terrorists out of the country?

But the point is not the body count, it’s making an example. The point of this example is that even a Christian-flavored event (such as a Christmas market) will not be tolerated and, should you disobey, then what happened to them may happen to you. The ultimate arc is toward a demand that if you won’t convert or submit then we will commit genocide against you.

This is not a challenge that a free people can afford to appease, as one appeased demand leads inexorably to new, larger demands. A successful terror campaign is never about maximizing the body count but always about maximizing compliance. It is alarming that an “expert” can somehow fail to see this.

As for Germany and Merkel, the calculation regarding immigrants should be a simple cost-benefit analysis: more immigrants will inevitably present more risk (as well as other monetary and non-monetary costs) and, can the benefits to the host country be expected to outweigh these costs?

If not, why would you do it? For immigration is not like humanitarian aid that can be terminated at any time, or even a foreign war from which one may retreat. Immigration is for keeps, causing irreversible and permanent change. And if that change is not for the better, then why would you do it?

    liberalinsight in reply to Albigensian. | December 22, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    But, but, who exactly do you want to “comply”. Sure “terrorists”, but how exactly do you find them? How do you make sure that you don’t get the wrong people? How do you stop from oppressing innocents, and those innocents becoming radicalized because of unwarranted oppression?
    Let us not forget that Canada has accepted 25000 Islamic refugees and not a single one has turned out to be a terrorist.

thalesofmiletus | December 22, 2016 at 2:41 pm

“If terrorists can’t come to America, then the terrorists have already won!”

Guys like this aren’t idiots. They know what they’re doing. They’re just from that collective of progressive/liberal fanatics for whom the ends justifies the means. That is, they have no problem placing political goals ahead of the literal lives of ‘a few’ nobodies, peons who get ambushed on the street, mall, or military office. You gotta break some eggs, right? You eggs get that, right?

    Well I get it Henry.
    I also think for him to prove his point he should draw a detailed map to his house and post it on radical islamic sites all over the net just to show how little he worries about terrorism.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to 4fun. | December 22, 2016 at 8:31 pm

      It’s why their agenda is impervious to reasonable argument – it isn’t formed by reason, but by ideology.

This guy has spent his entire career behind a desk, he is not counter terrorism expert, he is a bureaucrat and an academic.

    Walker Evans in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 22, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    While it surely appears this guy is a waste of good oxygen, I must insist that not all “desk jockeys” are incompetent or incapable of doing a great job in counter-terrorism. One of the best was sidelined by Obama’s people because he gave them valid analyses instead of the pap they wanted. Oh, and this guy has no field experience, having been confined to a wheelchair for his entire adult life.

    But make no mistake, I concur with your opinion is this case!

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Walker Evans. | December 23, 2016 at 1:16 am

      I should have been more specific, this guy has the resume of a someone’s protected pampered golden child. He has had all the right jobs at all the right 3 letter agencies at just the right time. That never happens.