These terror attacks could have been avoided – but in the exercise of my right to freedom of opinion, I clearly state that most world politicians, artists and celebrities (i.e. the apologists and sympathisers of Islam) have the blood of those killed in any Islamic terrorist attack in their hands.
The Arab League condemned Wednesday's Paris attack (but perhaps not Friday's), however their condemnation means little when many (if not most) of its member states sponsor terrorism. For instance, how can a country like Sudan & Turkey (that has admitted to harbouring elements of terrorist organisations) decry a terror attack in all honesty? How can a nation like Saudi Arabia & Qatar (that sponsor major religious conflicts plus terrorism in the Middle East, Asia and Africa), in all earnestness, condemn a terror attack?
I would've applauded the Arab League if this organisation had had the fortitude displayed by Sheikh David Munir (a Portuguese Imam): “If [Muslims] are not satisfied with living in liberal countries, they should just emigrate and leave us alone” (Here, in Portuguese) - indeed, they should pack their bags and migrate to those Muslim countries where their susceptibilities won't be hurt and where freedom of expression, of religion, of association is ignored.
I would've further applauded the Arab League if this organisation had echoed the words of President Abdel al-Sisi:
“Is it possible that 1.6 billion [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible!…(..) I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands,"
The apologists should pay attention to President Sisi's discourse: the Egyptian leader held the whole Ummah responsible for terrorist attacks around the world; he didn't make the distinction between “moderate Muslims” and “radical” ones, neither between “a peaceful majority” and “a violent minority” – he's right; but I wonder if even he will be called a “racist” or “Islamophobic”?
The Islamic State said that the Paris Shooting was an indication that “the vengeance of Mohammed 'just began'” and if we add these words to the information we have on the tactics employed by the perpetrators, we should be able to re-think everything we thought we knew about Global Jihad and how deep it goes.
Global Jihad is no minor thing; therefore, we would appreciate it if politicians, like Ana Gomes, would refrain themselves from tweeting baseless opinions like This One – especially when Alan B. Krueger & Jitka Maleckova have already refuted poverty, and other social ailments, as causes of terrorism. Politicians should think before they express themselves, for being elected is not a green card to witlessness and cheap demagoguery.
Said & Cherif Kouachi (French nationals) stormed into Charlie Hebdo's office building with Kalashnikovs and RPGs in their hands, in broad daylight: how could this have been possible?
A security expert told i-HLS that “In some Muslim neighborhoods in Paris and other cities, there are stockpiles of weapons,” and that Muslim terror cells - in France - are well equipped “with heavier weapons than just assault rifles” - how did we allow things to get to this point?
The signs are all there: we have an Islamic problem and it's counterproductive to sugar-coat it. It's also counterproductive to proceed with appeasement policies regarding Islamic countries (that feed the problem).
We live in a global village, meaning that nations have to interact with each other, however that interaction implies reciprocity (beyond trade opportunities) – a word to the wise...
Indeed, the signs have been here for quite a while. In 2013, I wrote that the Secret Services should act as the defenders of democracy:
“After scrapping some more, I realised the IC [Intelligence Communty] is in a privileged position of not only having to keep us all safe, but also of protecting our democracies (from potential infiltrators).
If we look at Europe (one of America's most important trade partners), we must acknowledge that there is a severe problem going on there; one that politicians are having a hard time solving.
Politicians' main job description is to legislate (in a way that benefits the people), to solve problems and keep the people happy - i.e. working, being safe and distracted with futilities. When politicians fail, by system, in doing their job and the people is unhappy for long periods of time, something is deeply wrong and someone is benefiting from it.
This is when democracy is in peril and when the secret services come to its rescue: the establishment needs to know the intentions of political leaders who are systematically unable to solve problems; who are systematically unable to take a firm position in crucial issues and incapable of siding with historical allies; who keep society with suspicious elements; who systematically try to disrupt a country's stability and development etc etc.
Certain influential public figures should be under scrutiny as well.
I scrap the surface of events and realise that a new order is being given birth:
Political Community Vs Intelligence Community”
The above words have never been so important as today; although I recently realised that even the intelligence community seems to be in need of a reformation before it takes on that important task.
"Terrorism is taking new shape and new name. No country, big or small, in the north or the south, east or west, is free from its threat. Are we really making concerted international efforts to fight these forces, or are we still hobbled by our politics, our divisions, our discrimination between countries, distinction between good and bad terrorists?" -- PM Narendra Modi