Friday, August 21, 2020

Undignified Obama - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

What an ex-president’s inflammatory and hateful nominating-convention address was made of.

Last night Barack Hussein Obama gave what was probably the most undignified, inflammatory, hateful nominating-convention address of a former president in the history of the United States.

“This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win,” he said August 19, puffing himself up with a studied indignation.

This is the same, shameless, Saul Alinsky-worshiping liar who presided over a seditious plot, a rolling coup attempt, to overthrow his successor using the CIA and FBI, the early outlines of which this writer sketched in Obama’s Insurrection.

The real-life conspiracy to oust Trump, though not (yet) successful, has allowed Democrats and their Deep State allies to practice these dark arts over the past four years that they may soon use to remove the mentally incompetent Joe Biden from the Oval Office to pave the way for Kamala Harris, who is not black despite what her publicists in the media say, to become president.

No one in the media seems to have noticed that the party of LGBT and racial utopia is now headed by a man who is apparently not completely convinced of the rectitude of those causes.

Biden has said homosexuals shouldn’t receive security clearances because “my gut reaction is that they are security risks.”

A friend of segregationists, Biden worried aloud that his children would grow up in “a racial jungle,” and patronizingly observed that Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Another of his legendary race-tinged gaffes went like this: “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

This is relevant now that the Indo-Caribbean Harris, is on the Democrats’ presidential ticket.

The Wednesday night of the virtual convention highlighted the endlessly expanding thicket of lies, hoaxes, and paranoia upon which the modern Democratic Party is built. It was low-information propaganda for the ignorant and the gullible.

America is hopelessly, systemically racist, and so are police, the criminal justice system, and the prison system, the audience was told. People with money, the hated rich, run everything and do so with malice towards everyone else. The novel coronavirus that causes the occasionally deadly disease COVID-19 is racist, somehow having a greater impact on visible minorities. Climate change, which human beings are definitely causing, is on the verge of ending life on this planet if we don’t do something very, very expensive right away. Presumably racism is involved. Illegal aliens are the incredibly talented would-be saviors of America and anyone who wants to deport them or enforce the nation’s borders is racist. Donald Trump and the Republicans are shutting down the U.S. Postal Service so Democrats can’t vote.

That’s probably racist, too, come to think of it.

The pandering to Latinos was in full effect.

Illegal aliens showed up. One spoke in Spanish, and an entertainer named Prince Royce sang in Spanish. Michelle Lujan Grisham introduced herself as governor of “Nuevo Mexico,” where, she said, we “embrace our multicultural identity as our greatest strength.”

Gun-grabbers, included former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, made an appearance. She is the gun-control fanatic who had a littoral combat ship, a vessel of war designed to fire weapons that kill people, named after her, the USS Gabrielle Giffords, because a mentally unbalanced man shot her.

But the highlight of the evening was Obama, who continued slamming his successor in unpresidential fashion. It was cheap shot after cheap shot.

And Obama was doing all this for a guy he doesn’t even like.

Pretending to be a solid supporter, Obama described newly minted presidential nominee Joe Biden last night as a “friend” and a “brother,” even though the 44th president reportedly once said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.”

Obama said: “But we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy. We should expect that regardless of ego, ambition, or political beliefs, the president will preserve, protect, and defend the freedoms and ideals that so many Americans marched for and went to jail for; fought for and died for.”

“I have sat in the Oval Office with both of the men who are running for president. I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care.

“But he never did. For close to four years now, he has shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves.

“Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t. And the consequences of that failure are severe: 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.”

So many lies.

President Trump didn’t cause COVID-19 and he didn’t fail to act as it spread across the country. The weaponized novel coronavirus came to our shores from Communist China in the form of a biological attack on America. Trump shut down flights from the epicenter of the so-called outbreak. He did this while Democrats bent over backwards early this year urging people to ignore the virus and buy from businesses in the nation’s many Chinatown districts to prove they weren’t prejudiced against Asians.

If America’s democratic institutions are now “threatened like never before,” it wasn’t President Trump’s doing. He didn’t unleash the angry, surprisingly well-organized mobs terrorizing American cities after the death of career criminal George Floyd.

Obama said the U.S. should be “a nation that stands with democracy, not dictators,” even though he supported the late Islamist strongman in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, and openly seethed with contempt for Israel, the only actual democracy in the Middle East.

Obama continued fetishizing democracy, even though the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Biden and Harris “understand that in this democracy, the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t use the men and women of our military, who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation, as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil. They understand that political opponents aren’t ‘un-American’ just because they disagree with you; that a free press isn’t the ‘enemy’ but the way we hold officials accountable; that our ability to work together to solve big problems like a pandemic depend on a fidelity to facts and science and logic and not just making stuff up.”

“None of this should be controversial. These shouldn’t be Republican principles or Democratic principles. They’re American principles. But at this moment, this president and those who enable him, have shown they don’t believe in these things.”

No one in the media will challenge Obama’s claim that under Trump the military was deployed against allegedly “peaceful protesters on our soil,” even though Democrat governors and mayors invited anarchy in the streets by refusing to use law enforcement resources available to them to put down the recent riots.

In the White House, Obama frequently bashed those who disagreed with him. He trashed the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address like a Latin American caudillo over its Citizens United ruling while the justices were seated mere feet away.

Obama referred to political adversaries as “enemies,” and demonized Fox News because the cable news network didn’t always depict him as he wanted. A decade before George Floyd’s death, Obama’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar, promised to keep his “boot on the neck” of BP after the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

As for Obama’s “political props” smear directed at Trump, two uniformed U.S. Army soldiers were used as scenery by the DNC. During the virtual roll call vote, delegates from American Samoa pledged the territory’s delegates for the party’s nominee with the enlisted personnel in-frame. This violates Department of Defense rules. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating the incident.

Obama mentioned the passing of former civil rights leader and corrupt longtime Georgia congressman John Lewis last month, calling him “a giant of American democracy.”

The former president left out the fact that Lewis, who has been lionized in death, played the race card during the Obamacare debate in 2010, falsely claiming that the bill’s Tea Party opponents called him the N-word when he walked past them.

Unsurprisingly, Obama whitewashed the Black Lives Matter-Antifa-Democrat riots after the death of George Floyd, refusing to acknowledge the violence and looting carried out across America by the Left.

“To the young people who led us this summer, telling us we need to be better -- in so many ways, you are this country’s dreams fulfilled,” Obama said in a new, wordier iteration of his “yes, we can” mantra.

“Earlier generations had to be persuaded that everyone has equal worth. For you, it's a given -- a conviction. And what I want you to know is that for all its messiness and frustrations, your system of self-government can be harnessed to help you realize those convictions.”

“Messiness” and “frustrations” are Obama’s shorthand for the things known as “law and order” and “police” that prevent the radical street activists he focused much of his presidency on fostering, from forcing unwanted change on society by violence.

After Obama’s address, Kamala Harris’s speech was anticlimactic despite her perky, game show host-like demeanor.

Interestingly, she wore purple attire, just like Hillary Clinton did at her concession speech in 2016.

She rehashed the themes of the convention in uninteresting, politically correct ways.

COVID-19 “touches us all, let's be honest, it is not an equal opportunity offender,” Harris said.

“Black, Latino, and indigenous people are suffering and dying disproportionately. This is not a coincidence. It is the effect of structural racism. Of inequities in education and technology, health care and housing, job security and transportation. The injustice in reproductive and maternal health care. In the excessive use of force by police. And in our broader criminal justice system. This virus has no eyes, and yet it knows exactly how we see each other—and how we treat each other. And let's be clear—there is no vaccine for racism. We've gotta do the work.”

Whatever that means.

Harris wrapped up her address to tepid applause from the 20 or so people in the TV studio or whatever it was in Wilmington, Delaware, and then “Work That,” by hip hop artist Mary J. Blige, was played as if to reinforce the politically all-important myth that Harris is black.

No one mentioned how Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii knocked Harris out of contention during last year’s primary debates with a single, devastating colloquy about the senator’s tough-on-crime policies while she was California’s attorney general and San Francisco’s district attorney.

Harris said she was a “progressive prosecutor,” yet in state and local office she did things progressives don’t like, such as defending capital punishment, emphasizing truancy enforcement, and allegedly ignoring those sexually abused by clergy.

Harris’s campaign for her party’s presidential nomination ended when Gabbard said, “I’m concerned about this record of Senator Harris. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

Gabbard added: “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”

There was no worthwhile comeback.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s convention speech was a snoozer.

“I wish Donald Trump knew how to be a president because America needs a president right now,” she said.

“As Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders warned us, if Trump is reelected things will get even worse. That’s why we need unity now more than ever.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi uttered bogus statistics, saying “more than 5 million Americans are” –present tense— infected by COVID-19.

According to, at the very moment she offered that figure, a cumulative total of 5,700,931 Americans had contracted the disease. But Pelosi left out the fact that 3,062,331 recovered from it, which means that only 2,638,600 –or half the number she claimed— now have the disease.

Presumably, Pelosi thought that doubling the number of those currently infected made President Trump look worse.

Mariska Hargitay spoke about domestic violence, even though the audience consisted of the same people who tried to have her long-running television show, “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,” canceled in recent months after George Floyd’s death reset the calendar to the beginning of Year Zero.

The Left made an attempt on the show’s life because it portrays police positively. Never forget that the Democratic Party officially endorsed Black Lives Matter and its pro-cop-killing worldview in 2015.

Rolling Stone leftist E.J. Dickson attacked Hargitay in June for daring to portray a good cop on TV, because cops are “embedded … in a system that perpetuates racism and misogyny and brutality.” The character, Olivia Benson, “plays a major role in perpetuating the idea that cops are inherently trustworthy and heroic.”

Even worse, Dickson wrote, “[a] not-insignificant number of police officers have credited the show with their deciding to enter law enforcement.”

The August 19, 2020, episode of the Democratic National Convention was fiction, like the popular police procedural show.

And it’s finished now, just like America will be if the radicals get their way.

Matthew Vadum


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Kamala’s Lies - David Keltz

by David Keltz

The only details of Harris’s speech more cringeworthy than her insincerity was her inability to tell the truth about virtually anything.

Last week when Joe Biden officially announced Kamala Harris as his running mate on August 12th, 2020, Harris made what amounted to one of the most dishonest speeches by a vice-presidential candidate in recent memory. “This is a moment of real consequence for America. Everything we care about, our economy, our health, our children, the kind of country we live in, it’s all on the line,” she said. Harris, who appears to have been honing her acting skills during the pandemic, unleashed a bevy of emotions during her remarks, as she went from “cheerful,” to “empathetic,” to “nostalgic,” to “indignant,” and finally back to “cheerful,” all in a matter of seconds. In a desperate attempt to portray herself as humanizing, relatable, and down to earth, she instead reminded us all why the robotic Hillary Clinton was seen as untrustworthy and was immensely unpopular. Duplicity aside, perhaps the only details of Harris’s speech more cringeworthy than her insincerity was her inability to tell the truth about virtually anything.

Harris heavily criticized President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, blaming him for the death toll, the economic contraction, the high unemployment rate, the closure of schools, homelessness, hunger, and poverty. “The case against Donald Trump and Mike Pence is open and shut. Just look where they’ve gotten us, more than 16 million out of work, millions of kids who cannot go back to school, a crisis of poverty, of homelessness afflicting black, brown, and indigenous people the most, a crisis of hunger afflicting one in five mothers who have children that are hungry and tragically, more than 165,000 lives that have been cut short, many with loved ones who never got the chance to say goodbye.”

Aside from the fact that Trump has been a huge advocate for the reopening of schools, Harris did not mention that seven of the top ten states with the most COVID deaths are run by Democrats, including New York, which has more deaths than Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona combined. Not only was NY the hardest hit state in the U.S., but it has far more deaths per million, when compared to any other country, at 1,692. By comparison, the country with the next highest death toll per million residents is Peru, at only 796. Harris also did not bother to explain how Trump was responsible for the 32,920 deaths in New York state, considering that it was Governor Andrew Cuomo who chose to allow seniors who tested positive for the virus to return to nursing homes, resulting in thousands of avoidable deaths. The state’s death toll for nursing home residents is listed as 6,600, but the official number is likely significantly higher. The AP reported that the real number may be as high as 11,000, with some estimates indicating that it could be closer to 14,000, considering that 21,000 nursing beds are currently vacant, compared to just 13,000 from one year ago.

In addition to ramping up testing, and sending thousands of ventilators to the state of NY, Trump allocated 350 million dollars to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction of alternate care facilities in NY, including sending the USNS Comfort ship, and turning the Javits Center into a military field hospital. For what it’s worth, Cuomo praised Trump back in April at the time when his state was in desperate need of the president’s help saying, “He has delivered for New York. He has." Harris did not bother to ask Cuomo or Mayor Bill De Blasio why they chose not to efficiently use the resources that the federal government provided them with. None of those facts fit into Harris’s narrative, so instead she moved ahead and blamed Trump for an economy that is recovering quicker than many economists predicted.

“The president’s mismanagement of the pandemic has plunged us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” she said. The ability to create an alternate reality is nothing new for Harris. This is the same person who said that the Trump economy was failing a year ago, at a Democratic debate on June 28th, 2019. “You know, this president walks around talking about and flouting his great economy, right? My great economy… You ask him, well, how are you measuring this greatness of this economy of yours and they point to the jobless numbers and the unemployment numbers... Working families need support and need to be lifted up, and frankly this economy is not working for working people.” At the time that Harris made those factually incoherent remarks, the unemployment rate sat at a robust 3.7 percent (the 16th consecutive month that it was at or below the 4 percent threshold), African-American unemployment stood at a solid 6 percent, Asian-American unemployment was at 2.1 percent, 192,000 new jobs were created each month over a twelve-month period, and average hourly earnings rose by 3 percent from the previous year. In other words, when the U.S. economy was thriving and perhaps stronger than at any point in our history, Harris wanted Americans to believe that we were still living in the Great Depression.

Harris also bizarrely compared COVID-19 to Ebola. “It didn’t have to be this way. Six years ago, in fact, we had a different health crisis, it was called Ebola. We all remember that pandemic, but you know what happened then? Barack Obama and Joe Biden did their job.” As of this writing the coronavirus has killed 775,000 people worldwide, and 21,927,114 people have tested positive for the virus. Ebola, by comparison, killed 11,310 people worldwide, while only 28,616 people tested positive for it. To put in perspective, nearly as many people have tested positive for the coronavirus as the total number of people residing in Sri Lanka, a country that has the world's 58th largest population at just over 21 million. Meanwhile, roughly the same number of people that can attend a football game at Princeton Stadium (27,800), tested positive for Ebola.

The Democratic vice-presidential candidate also professed her supposed patriotism and love for the country by calling the U.S. a country that is rooted in institutional racism. She praised the “Black Lives Matter Movement,” while failing to condemn violent protests, the rioting, the looting, the burning of businesses, churches, and courthouses, and the destruction of property that has swept across major cities including: Portland, Seattle, Minnesota, Chicago, New York City, Washington, D.C. and many other places. “We’re experiencing a moral reckoning with racism and systemic injustice that has brought a new coalition of conscience to the streets of our country, demanding change,” she said. The beneficiaries from this “moral reckoning,” or non-social distancing exercise that has made our streets much less safe was not something Harris was willing to explore.

Harris also claimed that she, along with Joe Biden, would bring the jobs back, “We’ll create millions of jobs and fight climate change through a clean energy revolution, bring back critical supply chains so the future is made in America, build on the affordable care act.” Harris and Biden somehow plan on increasing employment while raising taxes by more than three trillion dollars, including increasing the marginal, federal, and payroll tax rates, and eliminating thousands of jobs in the energy sector if the “Green New Deal,” is implemented. Harris spoke of implementing many of the things that Trump not only talked about, but already succeeded in accomplishing before the Chinese virus struck the world. All of these outright lies might explain why Harris was forced to drop out of the presidential race last December, after running her campaign into insolvency coupled with her anemic poll numbers. Not to worry, the mainstream media continues to tell us Harris is not only a moderate, but much more exciting, and invigorating the second time around. She is none of those things, but one constant remains: she is as dishonest as ever.

Image: PD, Cali National Guard

David Keltz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why It Should Matter that Kamala Harris Is Not a Natural Born Citizen - Mark A. Hewitt

by Mark A. Hewitt

Up until the 2008 election, every previous presidential candidate knew the constitutional requirements. Not so much anymore.

If the media were to ask President Trump, "Are you a natural born citizen?," he would probably respond with, "My father, an American citizen, Fred Trump, was born in New York City, and my mother, Mary Anne, was born in Scotland and became a naturalized American citizen in March 1942. I was born in Queens in 1946. Yes, I am a natural born citizen."

When Kamala Harris was asked the same question, her response was anfractuous and curious: "Look, I'm very clear-eyed about the fact that they are going to engage, as you said, in what they have done throughout this administration, which is just, let's just be very candid and straightforward, they're going to engage in lies, they're going to engage in deception, they're going to engage in an attempt to distract from the real issues that are impacting the American people."

In other words, "No."

If you are constitutionally eligible, what is the harm in laying out a response? "Mom and dad were both American citizens."

But Senator Harris would rather engage in actions to circumvent the U.S. Constitution over articulating her ineligibility.

If you listened to the media, you would think there is no definition anywhere of "natural born citizen." The media assert that the clause "natural born citizen" isn't defined anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. But the media hide the fact that "natural born citizen" was specifically defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Here is the law and the wording. Congress's first act concerning citizenship, the Naturalization Act of 1790, provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" (Act of March 26, 1790. 1 Stat. pages 103, 104 [emphasis added]).

Let's be clear because this is important: the Naturalization Act of 1790 unambiguously defined that children of citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens irrespective of where they are born. Children of citizens of the United States may be born beyond the sea, out of the limits of the United States. It doesn't matter. Being a natural born citizen has nothing to do with where you are born but strictly to whom you are born — as long as it's to American citizens. This is the media's and the Democrat Party's great lie going on twelve years now. There are many ways to become a U.S. citizen, but if you are to seek the office of the president (or the vice president), you must be a child born of American parents.

And it was so blindingly obvious and repetitive that children of citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens irrespective of where they are born that Congress removed the wording during the replacement Naturalization Act of 1795. What else can it be? For over 200 years, no one had any questions about what was meant by natural born citizen until despicable and reprehensible lawyers claimed that the Constitution was wrong or discriminatory in order to disqualify Republican presidential candidates who were born abroad to American parents, such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, and Christian D. Herter.

And now, when the political foot is well on the other side of the aisle, now any challenge is considered a "distraction."

What we see is that when there is an obvious case of ineligibility and the media's chosen candidate is a Democrat, such as Barack Obama (father was a British subject, a Kenyan national, on a student visa and was never a naturalized citizen) or Kamala Harris (mother and father both born abroad; one naturalized citizen at the time of birth), the media freak out, attack, and smear Republicans. Instead of acknowledging they are not natural born citizens or seeking to resolve the issue in a court of law, they choose to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

That is what all this media-driven red herring birtherism nonsense has been about — not place of birth on birth certificates, but, two lines down, the nationality of parents who are not American citizens whose children wish to run for the office of the president (or vice president).

How did we get to this place? In 2020? This is unadulterated media malfeasance. They act like three year-olds caught stealing candy. They could have been adults and reported the law and the facts but chose not to.

Up until the 2008 election, every previous presidential candidate knew the constitutional requirements, but only Barack Obama chose to circumvent the Constitution. Emboldened by Obama's successful run at the White House, Senator Harris is making a go. Good luck, Kamala. It will not work this time.

The Founders were sensitive to foreign influence in the new government. The natural born citizen requirement for presidents has always been about erecting a barrier against foreign powers scheming a way into our government.

This is a topic that will not ever go away. The left rejects the Constitution and will keep throwing ineligible candidates for high office for as long as it takes to have a president who can shred the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers made it clear. The below is from No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, from the New York Packet, Friday, March 14, 1788. (My emphasis.)

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
A reasonable, intelligent person who isn't committed to deceiving the American people should have little problem recognizing the spirit and intent of the definition of "natural born citizen." Liberal lawyers writing in law reviews and their friends in the media have always attacked the Constitution as faulty, and they cite the law and references that support their twisted view of a fairly straightforward topic.

The U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 cite multiple instances of "natural born citizen" and make clear the Framers' connotation and intent: that children of citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens irrespective of where they are born.

It is a lie of the left that the natural born citizen clause is ambiguous.

Even if they do any research, the left will fail to cite the letter predating the appearance of the phrase in the Committee of Eleven report, when John Jay wrote to George Washington (The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, page 61):
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise ... to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the american (sic) army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.
The Jay letter is consistent with Hamilton in Federalist 68; some have assumed the Jay letter to be the source of the phrase in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The only firm conclusions that may be drawn from Hamilton and Jay is that it was in the interest of the new government to keep foreigners away from the presidency and that the president and commander in chief should be a natural born citizen.

I do not see any ambiguity; the president must not be born of a parent of a foreign power and need not be native born, but must be born of American citizens. To be a natural born citizen, it doesn't matter where you are born as long as your parents are American citizens.

Mark A. Hewitt writes thrillers and an occasional children's book and is a longtime contributor to American Thinker.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mounting Evidence Points to Hezbollah Culpability in Beirut Blast - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

Hezbollah’s central role in Lebanon’s affairs precludes any conclusion but guilt.

Within an hour of the massive explosion that rocked Beirut on August 4, Hezbollah denied any culpability. Lebanon’s president, Michel Aoun, considered a close Hezbollah ally, immediately attributed the blast to the presence of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate that ignited after a nearby warehouse housing fireworks caught fire. Lebanese authorities claim that the ammonium nitrate was confiscated from a Russian cargo vessel in 2013 after the ship took a detour from its original destination and docked at the port.

The ammonium nitrate, which can be used to make explosives, was stored at the port for seven years before it blew up with catastrophic consequences. There is ample reason to believe that Hezbollah was responsible for the blast and resulting carnage. The collective evidence is in fact, damning.

First, one must understand that in Lebanon, Hezbollah controls all ports of entry, either directly through force of arms or indirectly, through graft. The obvious purpose is to control the flow of weapons, money and narcotics that pass through these ports of entry. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Hezbollah was aware of the presence of the ammonium nitrate.

In 2008 the Lebanese cabinet headed by the Western-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, attempted to remove security cameras installed by Hezbollah at Beirut International Airport. The cabinet also attempted to remove Brigadier General Wafiq Shkeir, widely regarded as a Hezbollah stooge, from his post as airport security chief. Finally, the government attempted to close separate telecommunication infrastructure that Hezbollah was installing throughout the country.

Hezbollah responded to the cabinet’s challenge with overwhelming military force, imposing its will on the government. The government collapsed and Siniora was forced to resign. From that point on, Hezbollah ceased to be a mini state within Lebanon. Rather it was Lebanon that was transformed into a mini state within Hezbollah.

Second, the swiftness of denials from Hezbollah officials in connection with the blast brings to mind the alacrity with which Iranian authorities denied any culpability in the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. In both cases, bad actors were laying the groundwork for a cover-up. Hezbollah is also opposing efforts to internationalize the investigation, in what appears to be a blatant attempt to thwart transparency.

Third, Hezbollah has in the past attempted to use ammonium nitrate in preparatory stages for attacks against Western targets.  Ammonium nitrate stashes linked to Hezbollah were found in London, Cyprus and southern Germany. In the latter case, the stockpiles were uncovered with the help of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service. British authorities stated that their operation was aided by “international partners.” In 2016, Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, threatened to target ammonia storage tanks located in Israel’s third largest city of Haifa. The terror leader stated that the resulting explosion from such an attack would be akin to a nuclear bomb, chuckling as he discussed the matter.  

Fourth, the Jerusalem Post’s Seth Frantzman notes that Hezbollah has imported thousands of tons of ammonium nitrate from Syria. Hezbollah worked hard to secure Lebanon’s agricultural ministry for itself to make it easier for the group to acquire the material. It’s clear that Hezbollah was cognizant of ammonium nitrate’s usefulness as a terror weapon and sought to use it for malign activities. It is also a good bet that the ammonium nitrate that exploded on August 4 was requisitioned by Hezbollah.

There are a few more components to this story that cast further suspicion on Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been known to house its munitions in the midst of civilian areas. In 2018, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an address to the UN General Assembly, highlighted areas on a map of Beirut where Hezbollah was storing missiles and other munitions. He noted that one such facility was adjacent to the shoreline.

Following the Beirut explosion, videos began circulating showing the presence of subterranean tunnels that were uncovered as a result of the blast. A reporter from Sky News described what she saw as a “labyrinth of subterranean tunnels.” There could have been a benign explanation for the presence of the tunnels but the Lebanese Army, which acts as an auxiliary force for Hezbollah, quickly denied the presence of any tunnels, leading to suspicion that the tunnels had a more malign purpose, such as to store military hardware.

This theory was bolstered by seismological data suggesting that the Beirut blast was preceded by a series of six explosions, five of which were characterized as being consistent with munitions detonations. Boaz Hayoun, a former military engineering officer and explosives expert said that he compiled the seismic data from an array of sensors. Moreover, Hayoun noted that the 140-foot deep crater left by the blast could not have been accomplished solely by the amount of ammonium nitrate reported by Lebanese authorities.

Lebanon is a failed state that has been subsumed by Hezbollah and by extension, Iran. The explosion that leveled much of Beirut and wreaked so much devastation is a mere symptom of a malignant disease, and the disease is Hezbollah.  

* * *
Photo credit: mehdi shojaeian

Ari Lieberman


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tensions rise as IDF strikes Gaza in response to arson terrorism - Lilach Shoval and ILH Staff

by Lilach Shoval and ILH Staff 

Over 200 fires have been sparked by airborne explosives launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip in the past two weeks. IDF troops foil arson attack near Ramallah, killing one terrorist and wounding another.

The Israeli military struck Hamas positions in the Gaza Strip early on Thursday morning, following a series of arson attacks emanating from the coastal enclave.

According to the Palestinian Shehab news agency, no injuries were reported.

"IDF tanks shelled Hamas military posts in the Gaza Strip," the IDF Spokesperson's Unit confirmed.

"The strike was carried out in response to the launch of explosive and incendiary balloons from Gaza into Israeli territory."

This was the latest in retaliatory strikes by the IDF against the terrorist group ruling Gaza, as the past two weeks have seen an escalation in arson terrorism.

On Wednesday over 15 fires were sparked by airborne explosives send into Israel from Gaza, burning miles of farmland in the Eshkol and Shaar Hanegev regional councils.

Over 200 fires have been sparked in the western Negev over the last two weeks by incendiary balloons.

Also on Thursday, IDF troop patrolling near the village Deir Abu Mashal, on the outskirts of Ramallah, thwarted an arson attack.

The soldiers identified Palestinians carrying several firebombs and engaged.

The IDF said the cell was hit. One of the terrorists sustained mortal wounds and died in a nearby hospital. Another terrorist is reportedly in serious condition.

Lilach Shoval and ILH Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

It’s no accident that Americans are remarkably ignorant about the Wuhan virus - Andrea Widburg

by Andrea Widburg

Thirty years ago, Democrats kept the public ignorant about another disease in order to advance their political goals.

Franklin Templeton, an investment company, commissioned a Gallup research study to learn about Americans’ perceptions about the Wuhan virus, with an eye to better understanding the recovery. What the project revealed is that Americans grossly overestimate the risk that the Wuhan virus presents, especially to younger people. That they’re so worried isn’t surprising considering how the mainstream media has reported on the virus. For Democrats, hysteria helps.

What struck me was that this deliberate effort to stoke ignorance is a replay of what the media did back in the mid-1980s with AIDS. Then, the press insisted that AIDS was an illness that could attack anyone, no matter their sex, race, or sexual orientation. This was a lie. In America, AIDS was always a disease primarily limited to gay men, hemophiliacs, and intravenous drug users.

Franklin Templeton summed up the findings as follows (emphasis mine):
Our Fixed Income CIO Sonal Desai unveils the first insights from the new Franklin Templeton–Gallup research project on the behavioral response to the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the recovery: we find a gross misperception of COVID-19 risk, driven by partisanship and misinformation, and a willingness to pay a significant “safety premium” that could affect future inflation.
Although Franklin Templeton was surprised by the details, it’s doubtful any Republican is:
The first round of our Franklin Templeton–Gallup Economics of Recovery Study has already yielded three powerful and surprising insights:
  1. Americans still misperceive the risks of death from COVID-19 for different age cohorts—to a shocking extent;
  2. The misperception is greater for those who identify as Democrats, and for those who rely more on social media for information; partisanship and misinformation, to misquote Thomas Dolby, are blinding us from science; and
  3. We find a sizable “safety premium” that could become a significant driver of inflation as the recovery gets underway.
The following are the specific misperceptions plaguing Americans, especially Democrats:
Six months into this pandemic, Americans still dramatically misunderstand the risk of dying from COVID-19:
  • On average, Americans believe that people aged 55 and older account for just over half of total COVID-19 deaths; the actual figure is 92%.
  • Americans believe that people aged 44 and younger account for about 30% of total deaths; the actual figure is 2.7%.
  • Americans overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19 for people aged 24 and younger by a factor of 50; and they think the risk for people aged 65 and older is half of what it actually is (40% vs 80%).
By misleading Americans about the risks of the Wuhan virus, the Democrats are advancing several political goals: They destroyed the blazing Trump economy, they’ve forced people into government dependence, and they think they’ve given the teacher’s union a winning hand in forcing “social justice” on America’s public schools.

This video of Martha MacCallum interviewing Becky Pringle, the incoming President of the National Education Association, America’s largest teacher’s union, shows how the left is manipulating virus panic to its advantage:

Watching the video, I realized that I’d seen this pattern before. During the 1980s, when AIDS first appeared, the first people presenting with AIDS were gay men. Later, hemophiliacs and intravenous drug users joined that tragic group. 

The problem for the left was that a disease that was almost entirely limited to people engaging in risky behaviors was not a way to get funding for the disease or sympathy for the sufferers. That’s how the myth was born that AIDS affected everyone equally. That’s also how AIDS became, after cancer, the best-funded disease in America despite its relative rarity.

Michael Fumento finally exposed the deception in 1988 with a famous article entitled “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”:

The main problem with using AIDS to terrify heterosexuals into chastity is that it requires gross exaggeration of the risk. AIDS is a bloodborne disease that, 10 years after the first heterosexual AIDS cases began showing up in New York City, remains confined almost exclusively to homosexuals, intravenous (IV) drug abusers, recipients of blood products prior to 1986, and their steady sexual partners.
Only about two percent of all diagnosed AIDS cases in this country have been attributed to heterosexual transmission in native-born Americans, a figure that has held steady for several years now. In New York City, the heterosexual AIDS capital of the United States, only eight males have been identified as having gotten AIDS from heterosexual intercourse.
Wuhan virus is a nasty disease. However, if we had we protected the vulnerable (the old and those with pre-existing conditions), and then gone along with business as usual, it would have passed through America like nothing more than a terrible flu season. Instead, though, just as Democrats weaponized AIDS, they also weaponized the Wuhan virus. 

That’s their playbook. As Rahm Emanuel told his fellow Democrats, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Watch: New laser system destroys terror balloons - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

'Lahav Or' system uses lasers to intercept incendiary and explosive balloons launched from Gaza, had 32 interceptions yesterday.

The system that shoots down terror balloons
Photography: Police spokesman

The IDF's new 'Lahav Or' laser system located and intercepted 32 incendiary and explosive balloons which were launched from the Gaza Strip at Israel yesterday, including one interception which caused the balloon to explode in midair.

This is the first system of its kind in the world, developed under the leadership of the Israel Border Police and physicists from Optidefense, a firm which specializes in electro-optics and lasers.

According to a Border Police source, "the system effectively manages to intercept the balloons that enter its sector with a success rate of over 90%. The cooperation created between the Israeli police, the IDF and the defense establishment leads to impressive operational results that strengthen the security of the residents of the Gaza periphery."

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Can Terrorists be Deradicalized? - Part II - Denis MacEoin

by Denis MacEoin

The great irony, as some reports have shown, is that the very fact of being imprisoned or, in some instances, being trained in deradicalization courses can actually result in further radicalization. 

  • However pure religious Islam was in its earliest phase, after Muhammad came to rule in the city of Medina and during the successive caliphates that followed his death in 632, it became a dogma that the state must be ruled by Islam, its beliefs, and its laws. Today's radicals, whether in Iran or as newcomers in Western societies, apparently consider this a view worth fighting to uphold.
  • As far as Western countries are concerned, radicalization appears to rest on three things: education in many Muslim schools, upbringing in unintegrated Muslim families, and the intensity of close-knit Muslim communities.
  • When implemented, these measures will certainly increase the likelihood of long-term deradicalization. But more still needs to be done to prevent the spread and acceptance of radical views in the first place.

On February 3, 2020, Sudesh Amman, who had just been released from prison in England after serving half his prison term, stabbed two people in Streatham, south London, before he was shot dead at the scene by police. Amman was one of the top five terrorist risk people in the country and was known still to possess extremist views, yet the parole board did not assess him before setting him free. Pictured: Police officers at the scene of Amman's terror attack. (Photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images)

In the first part of this analysis, "Can Terrorists be Deradicalized? Part I," of the ongoing threat of Islamic radicalism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, it seems to have proven difficult to take convicted terrorists and turn them into pious Muslims who repudiate violence.

The great irony, as some reports have shown, is that the very fact of being imprisoned or, in some instances, being trained in deradicalization courses can actually result in further radicalization. So far, not enough work has been done to identify and act on this problem, but it has been recognized by experts such as Ian Acheson. And the UK government has published important findings on the subject.

The truth is that many modern Western states seem to have trapped themselves in a range of social attitudes -- such as the well-intended wish to show empathy or sound hospitable, or a fear of offending, or laws condemning "hate speech", or simple self-censorship -- that can unfortunately ignore or even sustain radical Islamic belief systems. This is not to say that the UK, France, or other countries actively promote the sort of radicalization that so often leads to acts of terror; but our failure to act, our insistence on political correctness, combined with a need to appear innocent of anything that might conceivably be considered anti-Muslim "hate crimes", often leads to such results.

Often this tolerance of the intolerant comes about through the best of motives -- and those good motives need respect. Precisely because Western countries are well-functioning democracies, it is essential that our laws and behaviors express that by treating all citizens fairly, granting them rights to have freedom of expression and the right to worship (or choose not to worship), so long as those citizens do not infringe upon the laws of the republic. Fair and respectful treatment applies as much to Muslims as it does to Jews, Hindus, Christians, or anyone else. The United States is the outstanding example of freedom for religion and the right to free speech, with Britain and others not far behind.

This is where our problem begins. Democracies can impose restrictions on religious observance and preaching (as France does regarding some items of religious dress, such as the burka), but in the main, democracies legislate to protect religious people from intolerance, and minorities from "the tyranny of the majority." The recently introduced Australian religious discrimination bill, for instance, provides religions with rights that often override secular values. One would be where a Catholic doctor would be allowed to refuse contraception to all his or her patients or where a pharmacist could provide the contraceptive pill. Religious hospitals or care providers could discriminate against staff on a religious basis. And much more in other fields including education.

We are aware that Muslims in our countries in the West may be subjected to what is incorrectly termed "Islamophobia"[1], but is it possible that this aversion might be the result of simple xenophobia on the part of the very far right? The murder of 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand in March 2019, for example, was carried out by Brenton Tarrant, an Australian racist "Identitarian" with links to European extremists.

For the most part, democratic governments and institutions seem more interested in integrating Muslims than in discriminating against them. France apart, Western societies do not impose rules on how men or women may dress in public.

The problem seems to be that this reluctance to treat Muslims differently has frequently led to failures to investigate or condemn signs of radicalism within Muslim communities. Fear of trampling on Muslim sensitivities (which tend to be the sensitivities of the more fundamentalist organizations) has meant that children in Muslim schools can be exposed to radical ideas without government interference, and allowed to grow up ready to embrace dangerous attitudes.

In 2007, for instance, I wrote a lengthy report, "Music, Chess and other Sins," on Muslim schools in the UK for the think tank Civitas. The report was published online without detailed lists of the individual schools involved, but a full record was kept and handed to the schools inspectorate, Ofsted. The astonishing fact is that despite having inspected many of the schools, they had never identified the often very visible signs of extremism in about 60 percent of the institutions I had examined, which were all the active academies in the country from primary to secondary levels.[2] The schools have cleaned up their online links and statements, but it is not at all clear that fundamentalist institutions have abandoned their hard-line religious convictions.

In June 2019, in fact, Ofsted inspectors discovered extremist material in the library of the Jamia Islamia school in Birmingham.

Schooling aside, not enough is being done to identify and challenge radicalization within families. Children and teenagers, as they grow up, are often persuaded to become radicals and terrorists by their parents or other family members. Many of these youths have travelled abroad to join Islamic State or return to European countries with their mothers, who themselves had gone to Iraq and Syria. Many of these mothers and youngsters may have attended and were indoctrinated in Islamic State schools.

In February 2019, Britain's Henry Jackson Society (HJS) published a detailed report -- "Radicalising Our Children: An Analysis of Family Court Cases of British Children at Risk of Radicalisation, 2013-2018," by Nikita Malik, the director of the HJS's Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism. The report identifies, in fine detail, issues that inhibit courts in dealing with children and families who are at risk of radicalization or already radicalized. In the foreword, Lord Carlile of Berriew writes:
"Since 2013, judges in the Family division of the high Court have presided over cases involving at least 156 children at risk of radicalisation. Whilst the Court and the authorities often are aware that they are dealing with the children of parents who are radicalised, possibly terrorists or with extremist mind-sets, it is also apparent that the family court is not always able to take the appropriate steps to protect their children."
There can be no doubt that most Western governments, courts, counter-terrorism authorities and police, are well aware of Islamic terrorism and the threat it poses to our communities. For many, however, that is seen as a problem very like criminality of other kinds. This impression often seems to lead to the curious and incorrect assumption that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

That notion has been strongly urged by Michigan State University Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Muslim Studies Muhammad Hassan Khalil. It has equally been promulgated by Saudi-sponsored a non-Muslim professor at Georgetown University, John Esposito, described by David Bukay as "one of the foremost apologists of radical Islam in American academia".

There are many problems with this approach. As I have previously argued:
"The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur'an, the Prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. It is on these sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa'ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have "nothing to do with Islam" could not be more wrong."
Another link between the Islamic religion and modern extremist interpretations of it rests in the conviction that shari'a law should remain a basic form of legislation in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere. It is also of great importance note that, however purely religious Islam was in its earliest phase, after Muhammad came to rule in the city of Medina and during the successive caliphates that followed his death in 632, it became a dogma that the state must be ruled by Islam, its beliefs, and its laws. Today's radicals, whether in Iran or as newcomers in Western societies, apparently consider this a view worth fighting to uphold.

I say "radicals" here to emphasize that far from all Muslims practise their faith in an extremist manner. This is not speculation: in 2013, the research center, Pew, published a major international survey of Muslim attitudes to Islamic terrorist groupings:
"More than two years after the death of Osama bin Laden, concern about Islamic extremism remains widespread among Muslims from South Asia to the Middle East to sub-Saharan Africa. Across 11 Muslim publics surveyed by the Pew Research Center, a median of 67% say they are somewhat or very concerned about Islamic extremism. In five countries – Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey and Indonesia – Muslim worries about extremism have increased in the past year."
The statistics Pew provides are a cause for optimism. A large sector of the world's more than two billion Muslims hold groups such as al-Qa'ida, Hizbullah, Hamas or the Taliban in contempt and are themselves concerned about their impact.

But that is far from the whole story. Pew's statistics also indicate that rejection or support for terrorists varies from country to country. In the world's most populated Muslim state, Indonesia, for example, only 48% expressed concern, leaving 52% unconcerned. In Turkey, a mere 38% were concerned.

Lack of concern does not necessarily mean complete rejection of extremism. Given the numbers involved, even small percentages who may support the radicals add up to worrying figures. One percent of two billion, after all, means 200 million individuals.

Pew carried out a similar survey in 2015, regarding support for Islamic State and concluded that views of the extremist grouping were "overwhelmingly negative". Lebanon, for example, was deemed 100% against ISIS -- in January of 2020, however, its government was officially taken over by the terrorist group Hizbullah. In Pakistan, a mere 28% held that view, while 9% were in favor.

A broader range of surveys carried out by six different research organizations and covering twenty Muslim countries found that support for ISIS was chiefly low:
"In the Muslim world, support for ISIS is low across the board. In 15 of the 20 countries shown, support for ISIS is in the single digits. And with the exception of Syria, in no country is it greater than 15%."
The Pew statistics have led at least one source to conclude that "All told, 60 million Muslims in the Middle East support ISIS, while more than 250 million remain undecided".

This seems a rash conclusion. Such a high level of support would surely have led to a much larger influx of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria. Nevertheless, the rapid rise of Islamic State did serve to show how many young Muslims, both in Europe and Islamic countries, were inspired to abandon home and family, suffer serious injury or give up their lives for religious concept.

As far as Western countries are concerned, radicalization appears to rest on three things: education in many Muslim schools, upbringing in unintegrated Muslim families, and the intensity of close-knit Muslim communities.

An extensive 2007 report, "Living Apart Together," by one of Britain's leading think tanks, Policy Exchange, revealed many positive aspects to Muslim life in Britain, but showed how a combination of a stress on multiculturalism on one side and adherence to Islamic values on the other have created a lack of integration:
"The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s, which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines. Islamist groups have gained influence at local and national level by playing the politics of identity and demanding for Muslims the 'right to be different'. The authorities and some Muslim groups have exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia, which has fuelled a sense of victimhood amongst some Muslims."
Table One on page 47 of the report reveals one disturbing matter: that younger Muslims in the 16-24 age range are more radical in their thinking than their parents and grandparents. They scored over 50% for issues such as the veiling of women, polygamy, the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another faith, and (71%) that homosexuality should be illegal.

In 2016, nine years after that report was issued, Dame Louise Casey issued a government review of social opportunity and integration. Among much else, she discovered that:
"Compared to other minority faith groups, Muslims tend to live in higher residential concentrations at ward level. In 2011: Blackburn, Birmingham, Burnley and Bradford included wards with between 70% and 85% Muslim populations."
She also found that:
"Polling in 2015 also showed that more than 55% of the general public agreed that there was a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society, while 46% of British Muslims felt that being a Muslim in Britain was difficult due to prejudice against Islam. We found a growing sense of grievance among sections of the Muslim population, and a stronger sense of identification with the plight of the 'Ummah', or global Muslim community."
Significantly, her research revealed that there was "a notably younger age profile among Muslims", with a median age of 25. She found, as well, that:
"Further analysis of the raw polling data illustrated that there was a relationship – though not necessarily a causal connection – between sympathy for extremist or radical actions, and other views that diverged from those of the general population: British Muslims who said they wanted to live a largely Islamic life rather than integrate, were more likely to express sympathy towards extremist actions; those who said they were sympathetic to extremism were more likely to say that religious harassment is a problem in their area; those with the greatest sympathy for extremist and violent actions were more likely to think that girls and boys should be taught separately and to support the introduction of Sharia law; analysis of the polling results also indicated that socio-demographic factors which had an association with sympathy towards extremist actions included where the person lived and their social class."
Overall, Casey found that Muslims were the least well-integrated minority group in the UK, even while she had many positive things to say about the majority of those of the Islamic faith. The rest of her review deserves to be read in detail.

The question we have been asking in this article is how far deradicalization of Muslim extremists and convicted terrorists is possible. As we saw in "Part I," often the British judiciary and prison authorities are not up to the job, leaving a man such as Umran Khan to continue his radical pursuits. In "Part II", we have looked at the ways in which individuals are radicalized and the social contexts in which released or returned terrorists are brought back. Regrettably, the prospects of deradicalization and integration for all such offenders still seem poor.

Britain's Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said after the London Bridge attack that the "grim reality" is that "some people can't be rehabilitated" in prison. According to the BBC:
"The PM called for longer sentences and an end to automatic release after convicted terrorist Usman Khan killed two people on London Bridge on Friday."
In response to this assessment and to the London Bridge attack, on January 21, 2020, Britain's Home Secretary, Priti Patel, announced a major shift in anti-terrorist legislation. A bill is to be presented to parliament by mid-March. This will call for a clampdown on sentencing and the extent of imprisonment for terrorist offenders:
"Automatic early release from prison will be scrapped for terror offenders while a minimum jail term of 14 years for serious crimes will be introduced."
Despite this initiative, serious questions remain. Leading British lawyer, Jonathan Hall QC, the government's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has called on the House of Lords to reject the policy of longer sentences for terrorists. His reasoning is that spending more time in prison will likely lead to further radicalization from other jihadi inmates -- a corollary we know has already taken place.

The government also called for "a sweeping independent review of the way different agencies, including police, the probation service, and the security services investigate, monitor and manage terrorist offenders – called Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). This will be led by Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation".

In addition, more money is to be spent on counter-terrorism policing and surveillance, specialist probation staff, and specialist psychologists and imams from the Muslim community.

When implemented, these measures will certainly increase the likelihood of long-term deradicalization. But more still needs to be done to prevent the spread and acceptance of radical views in the first place.
Denis MacEoin PhD has studied, taught, and written about Islamic subjects since 1979.

[1] On the phenomenon, but rejecting the term, see essays in Emma Webb (ed.), Islamophobia: An Anthology of Concerns, Civitas, London, 2019
[2] For a useful US-based summary of the report, go here.

Denis MacEoin PhD has studied, taught, and written about Islamic subjects since 1979.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter