RUTHFULLY YOURS

Al Gore was a few hours into his 24-hour global warming telethon in Paris, designed to fire up the faithful for the coming climate change conference in Paris in December, when ISIS mass murderers chose that evening to massacre as many innocents as they could find in the city. Gore’s global warming faithful are a large club at this point, attracting all who think the planet faces one primary threat — an apocalyptic overheated future in the next few decades if too much carbon is burned. After all, if one looks at the doctored temperature records, one might think the world has warmed by 0.8 degrees centigrade since the Industrial Revolution began 165 years ago. The “climate change is very scary” club includes Democratic presidential candidates among its ranks, as well as U.S. President Barack Obama. Gore, a former presidential candidate himself, is, of course, the author of “An Inconvenient Truth,” in which he laid out the climate problem as he understood it. The timing of the attacks in Paris was inconvenient for Gore’s broadcast, but also for the climate change army headed to Paris in two weeks, who wanted no distraction from their single minded focus on their issue. International media outlets expected to make Paris and climate change the association that stuck with their audiences, but now it will be Paris and Islamic terror.

Environmentalists have warned of future climate refugees, forced to leave their coastal homes soon to be overrun by rising seas and travel to new lands to find new homes. However, to add one more inconvenient truth, refugees are already on their way, in the millions, and not due to climate change, but rather due to wars in the Islamic world which have driven them out, and the compassionate instincts of many Europeans, who encourage them to migrate in, signaling they will be welcomed and supported by their new societies.

Five days before ISIS terrorists struck in Paris, I warned that ISIS operatives and war criminals were entering Europe disguised as asylum seekers. I quoted Salem Kurdi, who said in an interview with the Dutch TV news program EenVandaag that there are “war criminals and members of militias, Assad warriors as well as ISIS jihadists who apply for asylum in Europe.”

There are now very strong indications that one of the Paris attackers entered Europe as an asylum seeker. Suicide bomber Ahmed Almohammad, who blew himself up near the football stadium “Stade de France,” entered the small Greek island of Leros on October 3, 2015 – on a raft together with 198 refugees. He was accompanied by Mohammed Almuhmed, another man suspected of terrorist links, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro and Forocoches, a Spanish source, reported. Ahmed’s (forged?) Syrian passport was found near the place where he blew himself up on November 13.

The distance from Leros to Turkey is only seven miles. It was on October 7, that Ahmed Almohammad arrived in Serbia, one day later he was in Croatia, and from Croatia he traveled to Hungary and Austria and finally arrived in France where he joined the other ISIS terrorists who struck in Paris on November 13, on a Friday evening, that is. Le Figaro quotes Bavaria’s Finance Minister Markus Söder from the Christian Social Union (CSU) who said: “Not all refugees are terrorists from ISIS. But it is naive to believe that there is not one fighter among the refugees.”

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Maybe there is another, kindly Koran that only the Islamists’ apologists and so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ know about, but that seems even less likely than a leaderless West muddling largely unscathed through the jihadis’ escalating offensive.
I was struck by the contrast of Parisians defiantly singing the La Marseillaise and then running like frightened rabbits, trampling a commemorative flower display, at the sound of firecrackers. Don’t mistake me, I would have sung and run too. Religious fanatics with guns, explosives and a death wish tend to produce fear and panic among unarmed ordinary folk.

Singing national anthems will not deter the bad guys. They have to be killed. The current crop of Western political leaders talk tough (Obama excepted) but inspire little confidence (Obama not excepted) that they will do what it takes to win. Populations largely acquiesce to this weakness. Prosperity and the promise of scientific and technological advances have sapped or marginalized survival instincts.

The political centre in France must shoulder the blame for refusing to address Islamic revivalism with liberal — but nevertheless genuine — policies. Yet again, the folly of draping real problems in feel-good euphemism and has been made bloodily apparent.
On Friday November 13, 2015, three teams of armed Salafi jihadists did what soldiers are supposed to do in a war—they attacked the enemy. The targeted enemy, in this particular case, happened to be the defenceless civilians of Paris. Latest estimates at the time of writing are at least 128 murdered, with as many as 300 wounded, many critically.

French President Francois Hollande has declared this latest atrocity in Paris to be an “act of war”, although many in the West are not sure to what war he refers. Ever since the Salafi jihadist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, the political class in basically every Western nation has been keen to play down the notion of an emerging civilisational war between the apocalyptic millennialism of Sunni revivalism and the democratic and secular sensibilities of modernity. President George W. Bush addressed himself to “Global War on Terror”, a deeply ambiguous expression at best, while President Barack Obama’s use of the term “Overseas Contingency Operations” is not so much evasive as downright obfuscatory.

President Hollande has accurately portrayed the events of Friday 13 as “an abomination and a barbaric act”. He pledges that France will be “determined, unified and together” and “ruthless in its response to Islamic State”, and yet the question remains—for both the political class and the intelligentsia in most Western countries—what, exactly, is the Islamic State and how can it be fought?

The first problem is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s would-be caliphate in Mesopotamia constitutes but one manifestation of the concept of “Islamic State”. The terrorist organisation Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement), according to its own covenant and propaganda, seeks to fashion “an Islamic state”; Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is hell-bent on transfiguring the Republic of Turkey into his own neo-Ottoman version of an Islamic state; Nigeria’s Boko Haram has an African model in mind; the Nusra Front has a Syrian rendering; Jemaah Islamiyah is a South-East Asian adaptation—and the list goes on.