As an American who believes in the goodness of our Constitution, I grew concerned about Canada attempting to legislate “Islamophobia” as hate speech. For this reason I connected with PEGIDA Canada which is a Pro-Canada entity. They are nationalists! I went and gave speeches, met with Canadian patriots who love Canada and was educated on the differences between Canadian government vs. America’s government.
Antifa was there my first time speaking. Things were Ok until they started to put on masks. This was in London, Ontario where the Mayor called PEGIDA white nationalists. I found this label amusing since natives, whites and people of different races were part of PEGIDA Canada.
They only want to promote Canadian values over shariah. PEGIDA Canada actually prays in public for the Muslims who are attacked, bombed, maimed, etc. by Islamists who love shariah!
But Canada had a law against wearing masks in public, sadly most of the cops knew nothing about that in London or feigned ignorance.
After the masks came on an Antifa member punched a 70 year old man. I was there. I saw it.
Every time I have been there Antifa puts on their masks and then attacks! The last time I saw them put on their masks and race ahead of us. They tried to stop us from going towards our cars. The Toronto police intervened! Antifa formed a practiced line holding flag poles. The police formed a practiced line on their bikes and pushed them back. One Antifa hit a cop in the head with a flagpole and the dogpile was on! I was profusely thankful for their work that day keeping us safe from the fascist commies.
Even the Toronto Police would tell Antifa they were the commies. In fact Toronto police protected Antifa that day in Nathan Phillips Park, telling them they could not bring their commie signs because the Vietnamese were celebrating being free of Communism for 50 years! That action saved Antifa from getting their clocks cleaned.
A number of patriots in Canada and the USA have gotten together to promote sanity and make law enforcement’s job easier! We decided we need to enable the police to do preventative things to make people safer. The best preventative measure a local cop can do is insist no one wears masks. This is not so some Big Brother device can record your face! It is so the criminal element does not feel free to do something criminal. Think about this! Laws are made for the criminals, period!
As a Special Education Teacher, I believe simple things are often the best solutions to complex problems! So, we must enable the police to stop the small things, which is a big part of community policing.
No masks, then no one feels free to attack because they can be seen AND IDENTIFIED! Who wears masks in a bank? Bank robbers! Who wears masks in a store? Robbers! Who wears masks in public? Why do people go in government buildings or get on public transportation while wearing masks. So, they can rob or beat someone without a camera recording their identity! Isn’t it better to think ahead and stop something before it happens?
The following idea for a proposed law in each state was brought forward and developed off of a law in Virginia. Their statute is tweaked giving the local law enforcement officer more teeth! Virginia does not know what it means to be cold, so this New Yorker added in the cold weather exception.
Substitute your state or province for the print in red and get your state senator or Canadian government official in your province to work on this! Let’s help the police protect us by giving them the teeth to do the job!
Prohibition of
wearing of masks in public and private places; exceptions
Purpose: to
increase security in all public places covered under the jurisdiction of NEW
YORK STATE, and promote
civil harmony and assimilation in a climate of increasing public safety issues.
It shall be unlawful for any person over 16
years of age to, with the intent to conceal his/her identity, wear any mask,
hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or
covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property
in NEW YORK
STATEwithout first having obtained
from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. Persons who do
not meet the exceptions listed below will be charged with a Class B
Misdemeanor.
It shall not be lawful for a person over the age
of 16 to conceal his/her identity, wear any mask, hood, or other device whereby
a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the
identity of the wearer, on any form of
public transportation or within any government building in the STATE OF NEW YORK. Persons who do not meet the
exceptions listed below will be charged with a Class B Misdemeanor.
It
shall not be lawful for a person over the age of 16 to conceal his/her
identity, wear any mask, hood, or other device whereby a substantial portion of
the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, at any political gathering or protest. Persons
who do not meet the exceptions listed below will be charged with a class E Felony.
However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to
persons
(i)wearing traditional holiday costumes;
(ii)engaged in professions, trades, employment or other
activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the
physical safety of the wearer or other persons;
(iii)engaged in any bona fide theatrical production
or masquerade ball; or
(iv)weather is determinedly cold and the event is
OUTSIDE where it is colder than 10 degrees Fahrenheit and facial coverings are
deemed necessary and protective; or wearing
(v)a mask, hood or other device for bona fide
medical reasons upon
(a) the advice of a licensed
physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the
physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device
and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and
providing a brief description of the device, or
(b) the declaration of a disaster
or state of emergency by the Governor in response to a public health emergency
where the emergency declaration expressly waives this section, defines the mask
appropriate for the emergency, and provides for the duration of the waiver.
The truth is that, David Boim, a 17-year old American citizen, who was a Yeshiva student in Israel was killed by Hamas. IAP was alleged to have funneled money to the terrorist Hamas, a USA designated terrorist entity. The lawsuit was won by the Boim family in December of 2008; the appellate court upheld a $156 million dollar judgment against IAP and two other Islamic Charities. With the damage done to IAP, the organization was disbanded and reformed into what is now known as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Take note of the original officers of CAIR vs IAP.
As CAIR and IAP had little if any differences of officers, this establishes a direct correlation and relationship of CAIR and IAP. The relationship between IAP and Hamas was established by the Muslim Brotherhood in America (GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT. 003-001 7. 3:04-CR-240-G). Here it is important to understand that Hamas is a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. So there is no better authority to make the statement.
The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.
The Islamic Resistance Movement's Relation With the Moslem Brotherhood Group:
Article Two:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.
So who better is there to recognize that IAP worked with Hamas? Keep in mind we are talking about the very same officer who ran CAIR and still are! But there is still more evidence that CAIR is Hamas in America.
The largest terrorism financing trial of the USA was against, the Holy Land Foundation and Development (HLF). This organization was found guilty of financing Hamas. Now ask yourself why would an organization that finances Hamas, a USA designated terrorist entity, give seed money to the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR)? Worse, why would Nihad Awad perjure himself in court and deny this? After all the lies, Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed a copy of a cancelled check from the Hamas financier, the Holy Land Foundation.
This is the old information. If HLF was a financier of Hamas, why did funds go to CAIR? Could it be that they considered CAIR the American version of Hamas?
CAIR is the largest civil rights and civil liberties organization. We have 35 chapters across the United States. We’re an American organization. We are a grassroots organization, supported and funded by people locally, made up of people who look like you and look like me. I understand that my organization comes under threat and know why we come under attack. It’s not because of our silence. It’s because we carry a big stick, we remind people of the Constitution. We remind people that American Muslims are exactly like everyone else. And we’re not gonna allow anyone to threaten us, or create the fact that Muslims have to hide, and so we are an organization just like any other organization. We get audited. We get reviewed, we are a state-accredited organization and so if you think we are a terrorist organization then call the FBI and let them know, and let them investigate.
I used to support the PLO, and I used to be the President of the General Union of Palestine Students which is part of the PLO here in the United States, but after I researched the situation inside Palestine and outside, I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.
This is CAIR’s current leader. But then you could not expect a leader of entity to condemn the entity itself.
These are the facts. They are not made up. What do you think? Is there enough evidence here to posit that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is indeed Hamas?
As I prepared for this week’s show I read
many news stories and delved into a book by Angel Rabasa and Cheryl Benard, Eurojihad:Patterns in Islamist Radicalization and Terrorism in Europe, published in
2015. This is a brief book review. It does not review the book as a whole, but sticks mainly to the topic of radicalization.
The concepts of Radicalization or
radical Islam are problematic for me. Especially when those who use the terms
do not define them, or worse, they use the terminology illogically. Lets talk
about what that looks like.
A quick google search brings up these
definitions of radical:
Dictionary.com: a person who advocates thorough or complete
political or social reform
Merriam-Wesbster.com: very different from the usual or traditional; favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
Oxford Dictionaries.com:
relating to or affecting the
fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough; Advocating or based
on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting
an extreme or progressive section of a political party.
What if I take the definitions above and
state radical is “one who is against the norm. One who opposes what ever the
norm is of that entity, then call someone a radical Christian when he holds
evangelistic events, preaches the love of Christ, and teaches from the Bible.
Would that be wrong?
What do normal Christians do? Do their leaders,
a) hold evangelistic events,
b) preach the love of Christ
c) teach from the Bible
If you answers yes, that it is wrong to call what is normal Christian behavior radical if using this definition, then I
would be applying the definition erroneously.
Rabassa and Benard begin their book by
noting that, “The US perception of the problem of Islamist extremism in Europe
is primarily one of radicalization as a stage in progression towards terrorism”
(p. 1). In 2015, Obama was President. Education and training in respect to
Islamic terrorism became banned in DHS, the FBI, and I suspect also the CIA.
This is the same presidency under which fired DHS lawyer Dr. William Bradford
for using the term “Islamic terrorism” in a highly reputed article on the rules
of engagement in a journal that required peer-review before publication. The
article is meticulous and I believe had drastic importance for national
security. So in 2015, what did DHS think of radicalization?
According to Faisal Patel, in 2011 the
government defined radicalization as “the
process by which American citizens and residents turn to violence, using Islam
as an ideological or religious justification.”
So what did Rabassa and Benard mean by
Radicalization? The answer will shock you! The remind us that dictionaries
define, “Radicalization as the process through which individuals or groups
adapt extreme ideas”(p. 3). So according to their use of dictionaries, the
essential element in a radicalization process is the adaptation of “extreme
ideas.” Keep this in mind, as I have said, Rabassa and Benard’s definition of
radicalization will surprise you.
They next write, “what is considered radical
depends on social and historical context. In some societies, there is broad
acceptance of behavior that in the West is considered extreme, such as
draconian punishments for deviations from religious orthodoxy, adultery, or
homosexuality, whereas what is regarded in the West as normative, for instance,
gender equality and the liberalization of sexual norms, is considered socially subversive.”
Wait, not once did they use the term
Islamic to describe these societies. Not once did they say these punishments
are required by sharia. Why is that? How can ignoring this contribute to a
definition of radicalization?
There we have it, Rabassa and Benard
state their definition of radicalizationis “the rejection of the key
dimensions of modern democratic culture that are at the center of the European
value system” (p.3). So it follows that their definition of extremist ideas
would be anti-democratic or anti-modern European culture. Rabassa and Benard
define the ideals that are European that “extremists” are against as
democracy
and internationally recognized human rights, gender equality and freedom of
worship, respect for diversity, acceptance of nonsectarian sources of law, and opposition
to violence as a means to obtain a political end (p. 3-4).
To put this definition in action lets
change the cover of the book from Eurojihad: Patterns in Islamist
Radicalization and Terrorism in Europe to Eurojihad: Patterns in
Islamist Anti-Europeanism and Terrorism in Europe. I am not disagreeing
with this definition. I want you to understand that. This would mean that every
time they apply the word radical, they would be referring to anti-Europeanism.
Every reference to extremism would be in reference to anti-European modern
culture. This is problematic when viewed on an international platform.
Lets turn back a page in their book.
On page 2 they write,
The
ringleaders of the Madrid train bombings, three of the four 7/7 London bombers,
Theo Van Gough’s assassin Muhammad Bouyen, and others involved in Islamist
terror plots appeared on the surface to be well integrated. These individuals
spoke their new home countries’ languages – Spanish, English, or Dutch; they
were born and educated in European countries or, as in the case of the Madrid
bombers, long-time residents; and some of them were economically successful and
had attained middle-class status. But they still turned to violence against the
societies of which they were part.
This is as they stated the surface
examination. What would allow them to act in this way? That question is never
answered in this book. What would allow them to not express their dislike of
the society their family had become a part of? It was a European value to allow
free and open discussion of ideas. At no time does this book state that such
deception is permitted in the Koran by Muhammad, and is enforced by the Sunna.
So using their definition, these
people cannot be seen as extremists, at least not on the surface.
The authors state that the
phenomenon
of Islamist Extremism is disaggregated into three separate, but related components.
1.The problem of integration of members of
European Muslim communities into the national societies.
2. The radicalization of sectors of these
communities.
3.The recruitment of radicalized individuals
into extremist and terrorist groups (p.4).
If we take their definition of radicalization seriously,
which I think Europeans should, this could have meant that there exists a
phenomenon of Anti-European beliefs in Islamic communities that is causing them
not to integrate into European communities that they are willingly migrating
to live.
Rabassa and Benard had the chance to
nail home that these migrants are coming to Europe as “economic migrants,”
people who seek a better economic situation. BUT they did not follow through.
They had a chance to nail this. But they barely score the surface.
I do like this book. I like much of
what it has to say, but it seems as if the authors are either afraid to nail
home their points, or are merely avoiding difficult discussions.
Rabassa and Benard reveal some of what
makes things difficult in the gathering of statistical information. They talk
about the laws in France inhibiting good data collection. For this the authors
should be commended. This discussion is rare! They try to reveal the changes in
population across Europe, but admittedly are unable to give the true picture of
how severe the changes are. I witnessed some of this on my trip to Europe in the
Fall of 2016.
What I do like about this book has to
do with its attempts at documenting civilization jihad. They document not only
the change in populations throughout Europe, but begin to discuss the
anti-Europeanism of the Muslims who have been in Europe and those newly entering
Europe. In one case, they cite a survey in Germany that shows a possible contradiction
that they ignore.
A
survey of 1,011 people of Turkish heritage between ages 15 and 29 conducted in
2012 indicated a trend toward greater religiosity, but also a greater
willingness to integrate into German society (p. 13).
If greater religiosity means that they
are becoming more devote in their faith and that faith expresses what they
define as Anti-Europeanism normally, doesn’t it follow that they would also not
willingly integrate into German society? At least not unless they had a
subversive purpose? Why is there no discussion on whether to trust the
statistics they found in respect to the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, lying to
non-Muslims to protect their faith?
Rabassa and Benard devote an entire
chapter to Salafism and Radical Islamism. They correctly defined Islamism early
on as political Islam. Radical, though must be taken to mean Anti-European
according to these authors. In fact I liked their discussion of Sayid Qutb and
other writers on Jihadist beliefs. But I found that Rabasa and Benard had a
somewhat flawed understanding of the term reformation. They tried to discuss the
Protestant Reformation, but really had no understanding of it. BUT WHAT THEY
GOT RIGHT HERE is one of the reasons I recommend their book. This is only the
second book I have read, that purports to be on National Security that
correctly states
When people in the West speak about the need for an Islamist
reformation, it is worth noting that such a reformation has in fact occurred and
that the results have not been favorable to Western liberal concepts” (p.28).
Rabasaand Benard state there are two core elements that are common to Salafism
and Jihadi ideology. Listen closely, these two core elements are reasons for
every country to ban Salafism and to consider it as a political entity that is
banned under the purpose of National Security---Keeping its people safe.
Purification of Islam: by returning to the
uncorrupted form that Salafis believe was practiced by Muhammad and his
companions and an insistence on the unmediated authority of the Quran and the
Sunna (p.28).
Tawhid, the unity of Allah. This is the
founding principle and is a belief shared by all Muslims, but Salafists,
especially radical [under their definition this means Anti-European] Salafists
have taken this concept and given it a radical [anti-European] interpretation;
for instance, as Allah alone is the source of law, no human being or
legislature could alter in any way Allah’s law, the sharia, because that would
mean that human beings would set themselves in the place of Allah. Democracy,
therefore is the radical [anti-European] Salafi view is a false religion” (p.29).
Rabasa and Benard add one more thing, “radical
[anti-European] Salafists and Jihadist reject the concept of freedom because it
would permit what Allah has forbidden, conduct that is tied to Western ideas of
freedom and secularism, and not what Allah has commanded” (p.29).
Where Rabasa and Benard and I deviate,
is that they make a claim that “mainstream Muslims rely on the whole body of
the Quran, the Sunna, and Islamic tradition to develop their positions, whereas
many Salafists particularly the more radical sector of the movement, make
selective use of the Quran to support their Islamist militant views (p. 30).
This enters a discussion on abrogation.
Sadly this section neglects to state that abrogation is used by all Muslims to deal
with contradiction in the Quran. Neglecting to share this important information
supports their view that there exists an “extreme Islam,” a “Radical Islam,”
which is not and never has been the norm. I differ in my stand here because of
my study of Islamic histories and because of my study of what Islam calls the “rightly
guided caliphs.” Simple reading of
sharia on the topic abrogation reveals that it is not only an “extremist view” of
Islam, rather the use of abrogation is mainstream Islam.
I will say that abrogation is
extremely important to jihadists. Stephen Coughlin discusses the concept of
abrogation as important to understanding threat doctrine.
Rabasa and Benard then go into the Salafi
and Jihadi concept of declaring Muslims who do not share their views as
apostates. Missing here is a discussion on jahiliyyah, which Coughlin nails in his book Catastrophic
Failure.
Yet, Rabasa and Benard punch out the truth by stating “Mainstream
Salafists and Islamist groups and movements and their radical [anti-European]
fringe groups and movements can become gateways to violent extremism” (p.
31-32).
There is much more in this book. I do recommend it. So do go to Amazon
and get your copy of Eurojihad by Angel Rabasa and Cheryl Benard.
Introduction
This article comes from a paper I wrote as part of my studies at Henley-Putnam University. Because of today's attack in Toronto, Canada, I am publishing parts of the paper here in hopes law enforcement and others will make use of it.
1.Islamic
Speeches that can be deemed contributory towards an attack
MEMRI.org
posted a video and transcript 6473 of a February 2, 2018 sermon given by Imam
Mohamed Moussa gave a sermon at the North Hudson Islamic Center in New Jersey that
called on Islamic teachers to be mindful of what they say in sermons and
schools that could be deemed incitement to violence[1]. According to his
biography on the Graduate Theological Foundation Mohamad Moussa is the
President of the Tri-State Imams Council, and is the Secretary General of
Manara Institute. The importance of this call by Dr. Mohamad Moussa, is that it
is a public recognition that a problem exists in mosques across the United
States of Imams using rhetoric that can be deemed as inciting to violence. Dr.
Mohamad Moussa is not alone in his recognition of this. MEMRI published a video
and transcript in 2015 ofImam Tareq
Yousef Al-Masri who addressed the most recent terror attack in Paris as he
spoke in the Brooklyn Oulel-Albab Mosque on January
9th of 2015. In this sermon Yousef states:
Let us admit, without lying to ourselves, that we, the Muslims, are
time bombs. When I say “we, the Muslims,” I do not mean every single Muslim,
but Muslims of the religious sector are time bombs. When a sinner repents, the
first thing he does is make a bomb. He blows it up and kills people. We must
admit this. We cannot become immune if we do not admit this.[2]
While Yousef was not inciting
violence he was recognizing that it does exist in mosques around the world
including in the USA. Further on in the sermon, Yousef recognized who he
believed were the scholars behind the violent rhetoric being spouted in
mosques. This was an attempt to place a finger of blame against certain Islamic
scholars while recognizing that a problem exists that needs to be addressed.
2.Terrorist
Propaganda of Vehicle Attacks
Dr. Ahmet S. Yayla (2017) wrote of
the Islamic State’s “Lone Wolf’s Handbook” and its possibility for cultivating
terrorist actions within the USA. Dr. Yayla shared that the fourth chapter of
this handbook was entitled “The Ultimate Human Lawn Mower.” Yayla then reminded
the reader that ISIS had released a music video on the use of vehicles to kill
in January of 2016. Yayla noted that this chapter advised the following:
a. To
get a large 4X4 truck and to weld knife-like metal blades on bumpers and around
headlights to increase the causalities.
b.Choose
the most crowded places and drive over people as fast as possible to exact the
most damage.
c.Drivers
are not to stop after the first hit and to keep driving over as many victims as
possible.
d.Choose
the routes appropriately to ensure that there would be many other victims after
the initial hit.
e.These
kinds of attacks should be considered as suicide missions.
f.Driver assassins are advised to have
weapons if possible and fight back until the very end.
Of special note here is the
recommendation to acquire a larger vehicle to inflict maximum damage. Notable
here is that this would likely require actors to rent vehicles. In Western
society, a truck with knives protruding would likely be a target of law
enforcement before any damage could be inflicted, this may account for a lack
of reports of such vehicles in terror attacks.
a.Historical
Usage of Vehicle Attacks
When
I originally was working on this article as a paper for Henley-Putnam
University, an attack occurred in Germany. O'Donoghue (2018, April 07) wrote in the Daily
Star that in Münster a vehicle attack was carried out resulting in the immediate
death of three persons and the injuries of at least 30 others.
O’Donoghue notes with as little information that she has at present, that the
attack seemed to have similarities with an attack in Berlin in December of 2016
in which 12 people were killed and 48 others were injured. Traynor and Hickson
(2016) described this as the attack on the Berlin Christmas Market. This attack
utilized a stolen lorry. A lorry being a commercial type truck used to
transport goods.
Helsel
(2016, August 4) wrote of a vehicle attack
in France on Bastille Day, July 14. The attack claimed the lives of 85 people.
The terrorist was killed. In this incident investigations revealed what that
the terrorist selected his route than did what was called test runs in
preparation.
Prokupecz, Levenson, and
Gingras, B. (2017, November 06) wrote of a truck attack in New York City on
October 31, 2017, which claimed the lives of 6 people with 11 being injured
before the terrorist was shot but not killed. The truck was rented and a note
was found near the truck giving ISIS credit for the attack.
Counter-Extremism Project (2018,
March 16) recognized that there
has been a series of vehicular terrorist related attacks documenting 36 cases
since 2006, “collectively resulting in the deaths of at least 196 people and
the injury of at least 1,050 others”[4].
Add in the statistics for this week and the number dead exceeds 200 while the
number injured rises close to 1,100.
Counter-Extremism Project (CEP), documents individual terror acts. Noting the
country of origin of the actors which never appears to be from within the
country where the attack takes place. CEP notes that in some cases such as the
attack at the Glasgow Airport on June 30, 2007 that vehicular mass was not
enough and actors placed propane canisters for an intended maximum effect. This
action has been seen multiple times, some of them in failed attempts, some of
them seen in accidental explosions such as are described by Birnbaum,
Booth, and Branigin (2017, August 17) after the Barcelona truck attack in June
2017.
The FBIsaw truck attacks becoming a serious concern
by 2010 and published “Use of Vehicle
Ramming Tactics” (2010, December 13). Of special note are the indicators of a possible terror actor provided in this
release. The FBI indicators are tempered with the very real possibility that “a
ramming attack can be conducted with little to no warning”[5].
However, they indicators of a possible actor are only present whenone or multiple indicators are given. Among
the indicators shown are:
·“Unusual
modifications to commercial motor vehicles, heavy equipment, passenger cars,
and sports utility vehicles (SUVs), such as homemade attempts to reinforce the
front of the vehicle with metal plates.
·The purchase,
rental, or theft of large or heavy-duty vehicles or equipment, such as SUVs,
trucks, or commercial motor vehicles, if accompanied by typical indicators such
as nervousness during the purchase, paying in cash, or lack of familiarity with
the vehicle’s operations.
·Commercial motor
vehicles or heavy equipment being operated erratically, at unusual times, or in
unusual locations, particularly in heavy pedestrian areas.
·Attempts to
infiltrate closed areas where traffic usually moves, but where crowds are
gathered, such as for street festivals or farmers’ markets.
·A vehicle operator’s apparent unfamiliarity
with commercial motor vehicle or heavy equipment operation (unable to back up;
trouble with shifting; poor lane tracking; unfamiliarity with basic vehicle
mechanics such as air brake operations, slack adjusters, fifth wheel
operations, Jake brakes, engine type, or location of fire extinguishers and
other emergency equipment)”.[6]
Of interest is the fourth indicator which speaks of
observations of a vehicle in operation at unusual locations particularly heavy
pedestrian zones. This behavior has been discovered after reviewing truck terror
attacks that were committed. Celona,
Fenton and Fears (2017, November 01) revealed that in the case of the New York City truck attack on October
31, 2017, security camera coverage revealed what could have been a test run and
may have been multiple test runs.
3.Why are Vehicle Attacks happening more often?
Vehicle attacks are more likely to
occur because:
·No
affiliation with a terror group is required.
·No
specialized training is needed.
·Planning
can be brief.
·Trucks and Vans are easy to rent or steal.
·Little
to no financial investment required.
·Propaganda
from the Islamic State and Al Qaeda encourage such acts.
·No
collaboration or consulting is required to achieve the terror attack.
·Almost
impossible for law enforcement to detect and prevent.
·Death
while committing the act requires no jail time.
While it is stated that it is
almost impossible to detect, humans are communicative by nature. They write
notes to themselves, talk to others and share what is on their mind. It is
still possible that somehow, something could be known about a possible vehicle attack. Counterterrorism experts have a near impossible task to prevent all
such acts.
As an American who believes in the goodness of our Constitution, I grew concerned about Canada attempting to legislate “Islamophobia” as hate speech. For this reason I connected with PEGIDA Canada which is a Pro-Canada entity. They are nationalists! I went and gave speeches, met with Canadian patriots who love Canada and was educated on the differences between Canadian government vs. America’s government.
A number of patriots in Canada and the USA have gotten together to promote sanity and make law enforcement’s job easier! We decided we need to enable the police to do preventative things to make people safer. The best preventative measure a local cop can do is insist no one wears masks. This is not so some Big Brother device can record your face! It is so the criminal element does not feel free to do something criminal. Think about this! Laws are made for the criminals, period!
