Doing this instead would show they actually want to stop jihad terror. My latest in PJ Media:
An Islamic jihadist screaming “Allahu akbar” opened fire in a crowded Istanbul nightclub on New Year’s Eve, murdering 39 people and injuring 69 others. And immediately the pro forma condemnations began pouring in, serving only to highlight the futility and wrongheadedness of the West’s response to the global jihad.
Barack Obama called Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to tell him that he “strongly condemned” the massacre. National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Ned Price said that the United States condemned the “horrific terrorist attack” in the strongest terms. U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the U.S. government “strongly condemns the terrorist attack.”
Obama and the United States government condemned the attack? How reassuring! Was it ever really in doubt where they would come down on this issue?
These condemnations from Western leaders are hollow and meaningless. Indeed, they constitute an admission of impotence unless they are backed up by action.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter appeared to be promising some kind of action as he declared that “this attack only redoubles our resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Turkish allies in condemning these attacks and relentlessly combating terrorism.”
But does the Obama administration, in its final two weeks, really have any intention of doing anything at all to pursue the Istanbul jihad murderer and bringing him to justice? Almost certainly not.
And it isn’t just a matter of its time running out, either: this same charade has played out after every jihad massacre. The condemnations and declarations of resolve are plentiful, but real action against jihad terror, much less even a realistic acknowledgment of its motivating ideology, has been much harder to find. In this case, as in all others, the condemnations will not be backed up by any action whatsoever. They don’t mean a thing except as an exercise in bizarrely gratuitous virtue-signaling.
The impotence and denial is not limited to the Obama administration. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg tweeted: “Tragic start to 2017 in.”
But the Istanbul massacre was not a tragedy. A tidal wave is a tragedy. This is a war.
To pretend that jihad terror is a tragedy is to imply that it is inevitable, an act of God, a part of life, just something that one has to tolerate the way the victims of a devastating hurricane simply have to get on with their lives.
Jihad terror is nothing like that at all. It is preventable. It can be stopped.
But it can only be stopped if authorities make the hard choices to implement measures that people such as Jens Stoltenberg wouldn’t dare even contemplate: a moratorium on Muslim immigration; the deportation of criminal aliens; the requiring of mosques to teach against the al-Qaeda/ISIS understanding of Islam, and more. Since the current mainstream authorities would rather be caught dead than implement politically incorrect measures, these “tragedies” will continue to become more common.
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini vowed: “We continue to work to prevent these tragedies.”
No, they don’t. EU immigration policies are actually evidence of them working to make attacks more common.
All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. Is it racism and xenophobia to recall that in February 2015, the Islamic State boasted that it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees? Or that the Lebanese education minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country?
And 80% of migrants who have come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all. Why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe, and now into the U.S. as well?
An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September 2015, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose:
“It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.”
These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate. “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going intent on sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said: “Just wait.”
On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe….
Read the rest here.

Champ says
But the Istanbul massacre was not a tragedy. A tidal wave is a tragedy. This is a war.
To pretend that jihad terror is a tragedy is to imply that it is inevitable, an act of God, a part of life, just something that one has to tolerate the way the victims of a devastating hurricane simply have to get on with their lives.
Jihad terror is nothing like that at all. It is preventable. It can be stopped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bravo!! So very true …
Sarah says
It is preventable, if the LEADERS want it prevented.
They’re not there yet, Spencer. The liberals probably know deep down that this was a “bad idea” but they are too stubborn to come to terms with it. They are afraid of the backlash.
The only LEADERS as of late is israel, hungary, slovakia, and trump.
Any other countries who have said “NO” to refugees, please add to my very short list
Paul N Silas says
Islam is demonic worshiping an evil false god. That being said, it is being used by the FSB to draw our attention away from the growing evil in Russia/China. The Jihadist’s are just cannon folder for a gradual infiltration of The West by Marxists.
Proof, without fail, most leaders of Islamic terror were educated in Moscow. The invasion of The West by Islamic terrorists and other illegal aliens, is designed to destabilize us and weaken our resolve to a coming World War with Russia/China
The Russian mob, an unofficial part of the FSB, now controls most organized crime/drugs to poison the US and Europe.
billybob says
You mean the very same Russians who hacked the election to nominate Trump?
Zelda Zick says
Did they? Is there any proof?
The Cold war never ended, it just went underground. I the FSB can put a left wing nut in as Pope, and another as Germany’s Leader, not to mention Obastard, anything is possiable
Byzantium1683 says
Zelda, you bring up an interesting point. I am not educated enough as to the current actions of the KGB, but there is a problem.
The Russians (like christianblood on this forum) love to make fun of our lefty disease, but the disease was born through the Soviet union (Russia) trying to gain converts in the west.
So they laugh at our weakness, but its them who caused it, even though the Russian government is no longer leftist.
As a final point, people love to claim that every big name Dhimmi is a Muslim, but I find more likely they are just brainwashed people. You say the Russians installed this pope, but is it not possible that so many catholics have been brainwashed that Francis represents them? Same for Germany, though his heritage and statements makes it very possible obama IS muslim.
Byzantium1683 says
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, Billybob.
I don’t think its as widespread as Paul claims, but Russia does have its moments of pro-muslim behavior. Not to mention its ties to Muslim countries. However, Russia is still not as bad as the west in this.
You mention that leftist propaganda to mock the concept but….
It is entirely like the Russian government to “hack” the election. It is always looking for aggressive ways to reach its goals.
However, unlike the leftists, I don’t think its a big deal that they tried. Loads of countries do cyberattacks, and I doubt russia had a big impact on the election. Not through hacking.
I imagine leftist media and anti-russian propaganda had a much bigger effect on the election, regardless of whether Russia is guilty (which I think it is, but I have not read actual proof)
billybob says
“You mention that leftist propaganda to mock the concept” You got it right on. I find it hard to imagine Russia cozying up to the Muslims after the war in Chechnya that took between 5000 and 10,000 Russian lives and the terror attacks they have suffered.
Remember the Beslan, North Ossetia hostage taking at school September 2004? It lasted three days, involved the capture of over 1,100 people as hostages (including 777 children), and ended with the death of at least 385 people. Then there was the suicide bombing of airliner near Buchalski among other attacks.
Not to say that we could trust the Russians for a moment. Putin and his oligarchy are a mafia. I wouldn’t put it past them to use any dirty trick, even Muslims occasionally, but Russians and Muslims are not natural allies by any stretch of the imagination.
The original commenter fears “gradual infiltration of The West by Marxists” but I really doubt there are Marists in power in Russia today. They have long since cast away any ideals they ever had, including Marxism. Mafia thugs have no ideals.
As far as the election goes, the Democrats were desperate to have a scape goat. They couldn’t admit to themselves that crooked Hillary, the pant-suited hero of the Left, was the author of her own undoing. In reality, I believe Russian meddling had negligible impact.
Angemon says
billybob posted:
“ I find it hard to imagine Russia cozying up to the Muslims after the war in Chechnya that took between 5000 and 10,000 Russian lives and the terror attacks they have suffered. ”
Would you be surprised if I told you Akhmad Kadyrov, the Chief Mufti of Chechnia, a man who told his followers to kill as many Russians as possible, went down in Russian history as a “Hero of the Russian Federation” and got a bridge named after him in St. Petersburg?
Byzantium1683 says
To Billy Bob:
While not natural allies *other than conservative similarites* I don’t think even those acts of terror prevents them from allying. I do remember them happening though.
I do think the original commenter went too far in his attack on Russian Gov. For one thing, if Russia was still Marxist the Leftist media would be glorifying it, not attacking it. Though China is still semi-communist, another country that guy mentioned.
I agree, while I find it possible the Russian hacked it, I don’t think it matters. Leftist propaganda against russia alone probably had a bigger impact.
Considering that you are right, the Democrats are looking for excuse after excuse, and that I have not seen proof, its possible the Russians didnt do anything. Im not closing the door on that possibility though.
Terry says
Britain, (I believe Canada and Germany) and a few other countries tried to destroy Pres Elect Trump, and get Hillary elected.
They did the same things that the Russians are accused of doing. And John Podesta and the DNC are NOT the US government.
And, (in violation of US law) Obama sent (at tax payer expense) operatives to Israel to work for the defeat of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyanu . That, to Clinton, Obama and the lefties is OK. Not to mention Obama and the lefties badmouthing Sisi (Egypt).
And probably others, all of the time.
And 2 questions-(1) why would Putin want someone who wants to build up the American military (Trump) rather, than as an enemy have someone who would follow in Obama’s smelly footsteps and weaken the country? (I would always prefer an adversary-no matter the situation, to be weaker rather than stronger).
(2). Putin & Trump have never met, nor spoken. Putin, has, however, had dealings with the Obama State Dept.-run by Clinton and then/now Kerry. Known players. Why would a rational person want to give up easy targets and idiots for the unknown?
Alexius Comnenus says
I am glad that are still people who have logic, common sense and a sense of rationality. You penciled clearly and succint what islam is.
God bless good people like you.
gravenimage says
Uh….right. The Jihad is not really a problem…just ignore it, folks…sarc/off
byzantium1683 says
Very funny Graven, but Russia IS a problem too. The leftists mock trump, say he lost the cold war, but they are correct in a way-Russia was and is a concern.
However, you are correct Graven. The Jihad is the primary problem today. We can worry about communists or republicans or Russians later-Jihad won’t wait.
byzantium1683 says
Heck, I pointed out that Russian government sometimes supports muslims. See, the problems can actually co-exist at the same time!
Of course, while it sucks in other areas, Russia is more advanced in understanding the threat we all face. However, one bad deal with a muslim country, is too many.
Terry says
Byz 1683–
the US Government sometimes supports Muslim governments. So, sometimes, does Israel- when it suits their purpose (although with Obama, it is when it suits the Muslims purpose, or so it seems).
Custos Custodum says
Actually, YES. No doubt our highly sophisticated candy-asses at Foggy Bottom had all night discussions about whether to comment on this little “unpleasantness” at all, and if so, in what terms.
The initial staff recommendation was to express “grave concern about recent reports of alleged unpleasantness.”
somehistory says
The calls and claims of *condemnation* brings to mind an abusive husband who beats his wife and then the next day, brings roses, candy, etc. and says how very sorry he is that it happened and that it won’t happen again.
He knows full well that it will because he isn’t doing anything to prevent it and doesn’t *hate* it as much as he proclaims. He just wants to make sure she doesn’t leave him.
Those who *strongly condemn* don’t really. It’s just what they believe is expected of them in order to stay in the political game. To keep their power, they must pretend to care about the people over whom they rule.
Byzantium1683 says
You are right, but I think its more like a mother who does nothing to stop the husband from abusing her children.
Some mother, ehh? Some president, some PM (for Canadians trapped in Trudeau land)
underbed cat says
Agree with some history. Leaders who send small military groups to train our enemy are acting like abusive husbands, when the guns are turned on the training soldiers, the husband/leader must act as if the there is no intention to cause harm. Then the friends get the stories that the wife is crazy, while getting flowers while acting sincere to the wife but condemning her to the neighbors. Then shortly after a show of remorse, sets out to plan to undermine her further. Its a game of ultimate con to deceive so well and mentally abuse, mock, gas light the wife so he can continue the power over who he rules…which is the target wife. with a grin. So clever to condemn terror with a tear rolling down, as a caliphate and it’s soldiers crossing the borders, and flying in draws near.
Byzantium1683 says
I see. Perhaps it is most like a abusive husband.
However, People like Obama, Trudeau, Merkel, they are supposed to be leading our countries, doing what’s best for us.
Thus, I consider them more like my example, as they are letting down their children. Even to the extent that they die. In fact, in my example the abusive husband (lets say Islam) might kill the mother and the kids, even though the mother thinks there not taking a stand will save themselves.
Walter Sieruk says
The few times the Western leaders do condemn jihad terror attacks, they condemn jihad terror attacks they using watered -down terms as “”An extremists attack” or even “a militant terror attack” yet they never come out call as it really is. Which is they never call it “An Islamic terror attack ” or they never say “A jihad attack of Islamic terrorism. Even the term jihad attack ” alone is too hard for those cowardly Western politicians to say. In addition, during her ,last year, the campaign for the Presidency Hillary Clinton pretending to be strong, firm and brave faked denouncing what some more honest non-political Westerners call “radical Islam” Hillary couldn’t even get that right and be honest to use the correct terms .Hillary said she denounces “radical Islamism.’ In other words she used the bogus post-9/11 fake word “Islamism ” and not the real word Islam. Many Western leaders sure are very weak cowardly people
Byzantium1683 says
I think Islamism is a completely fine term. However, not when the far-left uses it, as they forget that Islamism comes from Islam.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s a strange but common phenomena in America’s and Europe’s modern PC culture that when it comes to Islamic terrorism there are many people who are afraid to call it what it is. That’s odd because no one is afraid to call a person who engages in violence for anarchy and “anarchist terrorist”. Nor are people afraid to call a Marxist who engages in violence for the ideology of communism a “Communist terrorist.” Likewise, a person who commits violence for Environmentalism an “Environmentalist terrorists. “Nevertheless, when it comes to a Muslim terrorist who engages in deadly violence because of the theology and ideology of Islam, many people fear to call that person an “Islamic terrorists.” Strange but true.
Walter Sieruk says
There is really no such word as “Islamism” it’s just Islam. The bogus word “Islamism” is a PC artificial word that was made up after 9/11 in order not to give offense to the followers of the religion of Islam who are not violent. The fake word of “Islamism” was fabricated after September 11,2001 and that fake word is not in any reference book on the topic of Islam before the date and day of 9/11. Likewise, the same is true for the false and pretend word “Islamist” that fake word was made up after September 11,2001 for the same reason that the fake word “Islamism” was fabricated after 9/11. Therefore, call things as they really are .For example, it’s wrong to use the term “Islamist terrorist” in contrast is keeping within the bounds of reality to use the term Muslim terrorists.
billybob says
I think the word you all are looking for is Islamist – not Islamism, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Personally, I have no problem with the word Islamist. To me it denotes someone who actively promotes Islam, like say a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, as opposed to a common Muslim who may not actively promote Islam.
Just my two cents, anyhow…
byzantium1683 says
Spot on, bob. I already defended the term, but I said Islamism, while you identified the best term-Islamist.
Because while Islam=Islamism, muslim does not equal Islamist (well, you could argue it does, but there ARE peaceful muslims out there, not that it matters)
Wellington says
“These condemnations from Western leaders are hollow and meaningless.”
Agreed, but additionally hollow and meaningless is making a distinction between Islamism and Islam or between radical Islam and Islam, which goes on to this day, even by many, examples being Dennis Prager, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer and Sean Hannity, who do grasp the Islamic threat to Western Civilization better than most. But to fully grasp said threat such bogus distinctions need to end.
Islam, all of it, is the problem. By now one knows this or should know it. After all, even many Muslims, for instance that malevolent man now running Turkey, Erdogan, regularly ridicule those in the West who make these nonsensical distinctions between Islamism and Islam or radical Islam and Islam. Time to end this particular absurdity, for truth’s sake and for Western Civilization’s sake.
Bill says
Answer: So that they can be seen as somehow caring about the death and mayhem they are directly responsible for.
Angemon says
And if they did, would it involve something other than wasting tax-payer money by engaging in “inter-faith conversations” with muslim communities in the hopes of trying to “win hearts and minds” so they can be counted on to “root out extremists”?
billybob says
Check this out:
Watch The Real Housewives Of ISIS Sketch
Causing Controversy For The BBC
https://youtu.be/DOB6UDC-67w
Article about it…
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/1608410/watch-the-real-housewives-of-isis-sketch-causing-controversy-for-the-bbc
davej says
They condemn the attack, or if feeling brave, the jihadists who perpetrated it. But they always fail and shrink from condemning the ideology that actively promotes it. This is a basic error of logic that in turn condemns US to further attacks from the same source.
Empty words and no action. Meanwhile, 240 more “refugees” are approved to enter the U.S. every single day.
underbed cat says
Why is Obama allowing the Organization of Islamic Conference to decide and approve this invasion pretending it be refugees when their migration had a agenda of colonization and control of U.S.,? If they are being flown in that should immediately be an emergency and stopped at all airports by anyone with any sense, that knows the potential for future terror and economic jihad that( or is) will occur. No one with the power to overturn or reverse this insanity lawfully….or are we under the control of the legal jurist or imams of islam.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Why Do Western Leaders Bother to Condemn Terror Attacks?
……………………
Grim but important question. Mostly now this is just pro forma political theater, and is just meaningless.
But, as noted, this need not be the case.
Chris Malan says
Of course, the condemnation of these attacks by politicians is meaningless. Most of what they say is either meaningless or sheer nonsense. Why should their condemnations of these attacks be any different?
Kepha says
This is all the symbolic character of politics. Something bad happens, our great leaders immediately condemn it, extend condolences, come up with what seems to be appropriate rhetoric (walking loudly but carrying no stick?), and then go back to business as usual.
As for “doing something”, what should be done? Sometimes, sitting back and saying “too bad” is appropriate. Does the USA truly have a dog in the Syrian fight? I’ve always thought we didn’t. Hence, it is better to have a generous refugee policy for “targeted groups” (i.e., Christians), and avoid getting into bed with either side in the conflict.
The world screeches about “American imperialism” on every front. Perhaps it would be better, as the Islamic world burns, that the USA think more of keeping its own house in order and safe, and let a quarter of the world that loves nothing better than a good fight and so-called martyrdom get those in spades. And, in the meantime, frack.
Crusades Were Right! says
I would go much further:
ban Islam
close all mosques
strip Mohammedans of Western citizenship
deport all Mohammedans
If it isn’t possible to connect Mohammedans with a Mohammedan country (as in the case of Western converts), then the West should take control of a part of the Mohammedan world and send them there. They can then have the choice of either living there, or moving to any Mohammedan country that will have them – or they can come to their senses and then be allowed to return to the West!
Laura says
For every ‘infidel’ slaughtered by Jihad,we should round up and deport 1,000 economically inactive muslims; no appeals, no excuses, no compassion, just a one way ticket to an Islamic country.
byzantium1683 says
How about deport them before they kill infidels?
But thats just semantics. you are right.
DFD says
Robert Spencer asks: “Why Do Western Leaders Bother to Condemn Terror Attacks?”
Answer: Boredom
underbed cat says
Just a note with the events of today, and the suspect that came from Alaska…..Anchorage has a new mosque…
Curious thing…..and also close to Russia….I wonder why they did not warn us…..in advance like they “tried” before Fort Hood….
i
Terry says
Perhaps they did- and our worthy leaders did what was done with the intelligence about the Boston bombers–nothing.
(I also never saw that the Russians had any intelligence about the Ft Hood murdering bastard psychiatrist/major-was that in JW? Can you send where it was? Thanks
Frank says
On target, Truth nude and raw that only governments of the left and peoples alienated with the hypocrisies of politically correctness and multiculturalism that are gagging Western societies and leveling the human society underneath do not understand.
Dacritic says
Dr Spencer, if mosques were to teach against the ISIS understanding of Islam, that won’t be Islam at all, is it? Any fervent, honest, educated study of Islam (of which you you yourself stand among the foremost in the world) and if someone decides to still adhere to Islam, then they become like ISIS. I’ll start by stopping immediately the building of more mosques. We have too many of them already.