New Zealand Police Let a Jihadi Stab Six People
They were tracking his every move. Really.
14 comments
New Zealand authorities gave just provided a textbook example of how not to deal with a jihad terror attack. Authorities around the world are certain to learn so well from this example that they will soon repeat all the same mistakes themselves. If there are any law enforcement and intelligence officials anywhere who are still concerned with protecting their citizens from jihad attacks, rather than pandering to Muslim communities, they would see a great deal of what not to do in New Zealand officials’ behavior in this case. But even if there are such officials, they’d likely be overruled by elected officials with the same mindset as that of New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
It all began when Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen, a Sri Lankan, Muslim migrant in New Zealand, began stabbing people at random while screaming “Allahu akbar” in a supermarket in Auckland, New Zealand. But the story of Samsudeen in New Zealand actually began long before that. Associated Press reported Saturday that Samsudeen was imprisoned in New Zealand for three years after being caught with a hunting knife and jihadi videos. Nevertheless, he was released from prison “despite grave fears he would attack others,” because authorities believed that “they could do nothing more to keep him behind bars.”
So instead of keeping Samsudeen in prison, he was released and placed under close surveillance: “for 53 days from July, police tracked the man’s every move, an operation that involved some 30 officers working around the clock.” This was apparently a classic Keystone Kops operation, for even with all this surveillance, on Friday Samsudeen “walked into an Auckland supermarket, grabbed a kitchen knife from a store shelf and stabbed five people, critically injuring three. Two more shoppers were injured in the melee.”
Samsudeen shouldn’t even have been in the country. He came to New Zealand in 2011 and was granted refugee status in 2013. Then in 2016, he “was first noticed by police in 2016 when he started posting support for terror attacks and violent extremism on Facebook. Police twice confronted him but he kept on posting.” Why wasn’t he deported then? Instead, he went from bad to worse: “In 2017, they arrested him at Auckland Airport. He was headed for Syria, authorities say, presumably to join the Islamic State insurgency. Police searches found he had a hunting knife and some banned propaganda material, and he was later released on bail. In 2018, he bought another knife, and police found two Islamic State videos.”
At that point Samsudeen went to prison, but of course nothing was done there to disabuse him of his jihadist sentiments; any such action would have been “Islamophobic.” And so “on new charges in May [2021], a jury found Samsudeen guilty on two counts of possessing objectionable videos, both of which showed Islamic State group imagery, including the group’s flag and a man in a black balaclava holding a semi-automatic weapon.” On top of that, “a court report warned Samsudeen had the motivation and means to commit violent acts in the community and posed a high risk. It described him as harboring extreme attitudes, living an isolated lifestyle, and having a sense of entitlement.”
Despite all this, New Zealand High Court Judge Sally Fitzgerald ordered him released. “Fitzgerald noted the extreme concerns of police, saying she didn’t know if they were right, but ‘I sincerely hope they are not.’” Well, great. Is Judge Fitzgerald going to pay the medical bills of the people Samsudeen wounded?
Even worse, even though Samsudeen headed to the supermarket from a mosque, Ardern went out of her way to exonerate Islam for yet another crime done in its name and in accord with its teachings. She declared Friday that it “would be absolutely wrong” to “direct any frustration at anyone beyond this individual.” Yes, it would. But aren’t there other matters she should have been concerned about in the wake of a jihad attack? Then she added: “What happened today was despicable. It was hateful, it was wrong, it was carried out by an individual, not a faith, not a culture, not an ethnicity, but an individual person who was gripped by ideology that is not supported here by anyone or any community.”
It is noteworthy, however, that a “backlash” against Muslims is more of a concern for Ardern than preventing future jihad attacks. And how does she know that no one supports the Islamic State or the jihad ideology in New Zealand? Has she had the mosques investigated? Of course not. That would be “Islamophobic.”
If there were any sanity in New Zealand in dealing with the jihad threat, Samsudeen wouldn’t have still been in the country to attack anyone after he was found with jihadi material. If he had to be in the country, he should have still been in prison. And now, Ardern should be more concerned about preventing more jihad attacks than about a fictional “backlash.” But what she is doing wrong is exactly what every other ruler in every other non-Muslim country will do wrong as well. This one is a real textbook case, and all the mistakes authorities made here will be made again and again and again.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Evacuated Afghans Demand Chain Migration of Extended Families, Complain Accommodation Is Inadequate
Two of the Afghan men evacuated from the Taliban-run country with their wives and children under the government’s generous refugee programme have called for extended families to be brought over as well, with one complaining that it was taking too long to get permanent accommodation.
Shams, a former communications officer who worked at the British embassy in Kabul, was brought over with his wife and six children and had been staying for over a month in a hotel in Buckinghamshire.
Speaking to the Evening Standard, Shams said that he appreciates the opportunity to be in the UK, but more should be done for his “colleagues and relatives… in hiding from the Taliban”.
Asked whether the UK owed it to his extended family and the rest of the embassy colleagues, Shams replied: “Yes.”
“I just remind Priti Patel of her words, when she said that she owes a debt of gratitude to the Afghan people, I think that’s the best way to put it, and we really hope the UK will continue to try its best to evacuate the people who deserve it,” he said.
Former interpreter Nazir, also brought over with his wife and children, likewise said he is trying to have his relatives evacuated from Afghanistan, saying they are being tortured and intimidated.
Shams also seemed dissatisfied with his accommodation, saying the “noise levels” at the hotel are “not manageable” and that the Home Office should “speed up the process to help us find suitable housing” so that the family of eight can “start our life properly”.
Men like Shams and Nazir arrived thanks to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP), which safeguards former employees of the British military and other UK authorities and their families. Initial estimates had put the number of those eligible to 5,000, but that figure could be as high as 10,000. So far, the UK has admitted 8,000 under the ARAP scheme.
Last week the British government announced that ARAP refugees would be granted immediate Indefinite Leave to Remain, or the chance to upgrade their temporary status to ILR, rather than the five years’ residency initially offered. This means they can settle in the UK permanently, with the right to work.
Under Operation Warm Welcome, there would also be made available millions of pounds for extra school places, the NHS, and accommodation, as well as hundreds of university scholarships and additional forms of support.
The Home Office is also running a second Afghan refugee scheme, the Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), which will evacuate mostly women, minorities, and children. The government has pledged to bring over 20,000 in the coming years, aiming to resettle 5,000 by the end of this year alone.
Last week it was reported that two-thirds of local government authorities were reluctant to house the refugees because they were struggling to ensure social housing and school places for locals. Britain has also seen a record arrival of illegal aliens crossing the English Channel, needing to be housed. To date, nearly 12,500 illegals have landed this year alone.
Pope Francis Urges Nations to ‘Welcome and Protect’ Afghan Refugees
ROME, Italy — Pope Francis launched an appeal for Afghan refugees Sunday, calling for prayers and generous reception of those seeking asylum.
“In these agitated moments that see Afghans seeking refuge, I pray for the most vulnerable among them,” the pope told the crowds gathered in Saint Peter’s Square for his weekly Angelus address.
“I pray that many countries will welcome and protect those who seek a new life,” the pontiff continued. “I also pray for internally displaced people to have the necessary assistance and protection.”
“May young Afghans receive education, an essential commodity for human development,” he concluded, and “may all Afghans, both at home, in transit, and in the host countries, live with dignity, in peace and fraternity with their neighbors.”
Sunday marked the third time Francis has underscored the plight of the Afghan people following the government takeover by the Islamist Taliban movement.
On August 15, the pope called for an end to armed violence and urged Christians to pray for peace in the country.
“I join in the unanimous concern for the situation in Afghanistan,” he said. “I ask all of you to pray with me to the God of peace so that the clamor of weapons might cease and solutions can be found at the table of dialogue.”
“Only thus can the battered population of that country — men, women, elderly and children — return to their own homes, and live in peace and security, in total mutual respect.”
Last Sunday, the pope issued a similar message, emphasizing the need for “fasting and prayer” on behalf of the beleaguered Afghan population following suicide bombings in the Kabul airport that claimed the lives of 60 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops.
“Dear brothers and sisters, with great concern I am following the situation in Afghanistan,” he said, “and I take part in the suffering of those who are grieving for the persons who lost their lives in the suicide attacks that happened last Thursday, and of those who are seeking help and protection.”
“I entrust the deceased to the mercy of Almighty God and I thank those who are striving to help that population so tried, in particular the women and children,” he added.
“I ask everyone to continue to help the needy and to pray that dialogue and solidarity may lead to the establishment of a peaceful and fraternal coexistence and offer hope for the country’s future,” he said.
The pope went on to say that in historic moments like this “we cannot remain indifferent,” he said, adding that “the history of the Church teaches us this.”
“As Christians this situation obligates us,” he continued. “For this reason I address an appeal to everyone, to intensify your prayer and practice fasting. Prayer and fasting, prayer and penance. This is the moment to do so.”
While the pope and other world leaders have urged greater openness to Afghan refugees, the Wall Street Journal editorial board warned of a second wave of Europe’s 2015 migrant crisis with a new “refugee surge” coming out of Afghanistan.
“President Biden’s surrender to the Taliban will have deleterious effects far beyond Afghanistan,” the editors stated in their August 25 essay. “Another migration crisis in Europe could be among the most consequential.”
According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), by the end of 2016, nearly 5.2 million refugees and migrants had reached European shores, originating primarily from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries hit by war and the insurgence of the Islamic State terror group.
According to the Wall Street Journal editors, Europe now finds itself in a similar predicament.
“NATO countries are admitting vetted Afghans who worked with them, as they should,” they noted. “The risk is a mass refugee flow that overwhelms borders and vetting as it did during the Syria civil war last decade.”
Bringing in Afghan Refugees with All of Their ‘Luggage’
What's not being talked about.
Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban and American forces are withdrawing. As with such ventures, this has resulted in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees fleeing their own country. And as night follows day, this has also resulted in calls by many American individuals and organizations to bring in as many of those refugees as possible, because we “owe” it to the Afghans.
To hear such claims, one would think that these many thousands of refugees will immediately become part of America, sharing our values and ideas, and contributing to our communities.
What is not being talked about are the values, ideas, and culture those refugees are bringing with them.
In order to better understand the people many are calling to be brought in by the tens of thousands, let’s look at some considerations about the society from which these refugees are coming.
National Security
There are two national security issues that must be acknowledged.
First, a 2019 study found that 13% of Afghans had a lot of (4%) or a little (9%) sympathy for the Taliban.[1] This means that for every 100,000 Afghan refugees brought into the United States, we could expect about 13,000 of them to have varying degrees of sympathy for the Taliban.
Then we need to take into consideration that 39% of Afghans think that “suicide bombing” in defense of Islam is often or sometimes justified.[2] If we use the 4% number for those with a lot of sympathy for the Taliban, this means that out of every 100,000 Afghans we could have up to about 1,560 Afghans believing that “suicide bombing” could often be justified.[3]
Combining these two issues means we could be bringing in a potentially significant base of support for a jihadist group; and that base of support could include a large number willing to engage in jihadist attacks in the United States using explosives.
History of Violence
Then there is Afghanistan’s violent history. What is the impact of this history on many of those refugees we are bringing in? Consider this 2018 article:
…Afghanistan is home to nearly two generations that have grown up knowing only conflict and war. As a result, violent and aggressive behavior—particularly from young men—has become an accepted norm of Afghan society…a significant number of Afghan youth have become involved in organized crime or other illegal—and often violent—activities to fulfill their perceived obligations and duties to family…In many parts of Afghanistan, displays of aggression and intimidation represent a rite of passage for adolescent boys and a symbol of manhood for men. The social acceptance of such behavior, however, heightens the risk that intolerance of diversity and interpersonal violence, including violence against women and children, become an everyday fact of life. A 2009 report…described violence as “an everyday occurrence in the lives of a huge proportion of Afghan women.”…a majority of Afghans are exposed to violence beginning at an early age, including physical abuse at home by parents and relatives as well as the liberal use of corporal punishment at mosques, madrassas, and schools. Children witness their mothers and sisters being violently abused at the hands of family members, which comes to be accepted as a social and cultural norm, resulting in the acceptance of violence as a first—and sometimes only—option for resolving conflicts.[4]
We are importing from a culture of violence.
Rights of Women
What is the attitude many of these refugees have toward women? Here are two assessments:
Women and girls in Afghanistan continue to face widespread discrimination and human rights abuses. The country ranks among the least favourable on the Gender Inequality Index and the literacy rate for women is among the lowest in the world. Violence against women and girls is rife and the majority don’t go to school.[5]
And,
About two-thirds of men thought women in Afghanistan had too many rights and that women were too emotional to become leaders, compared to less than a third of women. And while nearly three quarters of women said a married woman should have equal rights with their partner to work outside the home, only 15 percent of men agreed. More than half of men also agreed with the statement that “more rights for women mean that men lose out”.[6]
Wife-beating is largely acceptable in Afghanistan:
Overall, 92 percent of women in Afghanistan feel that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife for at least one of these reasons: going out without telling the husband, neglecting the children, arguing with the husband, refusing sex, and burning the food. Seventy-eight percent of women believe that going out without telling the husband is justification for beating, while 31 percent think the same about burning the food…The Afghanistan survey added an additional question to reflect local attitudes—wearing inappropriate clothes. Sixty-three percent of Afghan women feel a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife if she wears inappropriate clothing.[7]
94% of Afghans completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband,[8] and two-thirds of Afghan men agree or strongly agree with the statement, “Women in Afghanistan have too many rights.”[9]
Considering the information in this and the previous section, it is not surprising to hear this warning from Pierre-Marie Seve, the director and spokesman of the French think tank Institute for Justice. He noted that migrants are over-represented in nearly all categories of crime [in France] and stated that Afghans, in particular, commit more crimes than asylum seekers from other countries.[10]
Prepubescent Marriage
Prepubescent marriage is acceptable in Afghanistan. In 2016, the Pew Research Center released a report titled “Many countries allow child marriage.”[11] An appendix to that report titled “Marriage Laws around the World” provided this interesting information about approaches to child marriage in Afghanistan:[12]
Despite a law setting the legal minimum age for marriage at 16 (15 with the consent of a parent or guardian and the court) for girls and 18 for boys, international and local observers continued to report widespread early marriage… By law a marriage contract requires verification that the bride is 16 years of age, but only a small fraction of the population had birth certificates…some girls as young as six or seven were promised in marriage, with the understanding the actual marriage would be delayed until the child reached puberty. Reports indicated, however, that this delay was rarely observed and young girls were sexually violated by the groom or by older men in the family, particularly if the groom was also a child.
Will instances of prepubescent marriage soon be coming to your community or to a community nearby?
Sharia as the official Law of the Land
Afghans almost uniformly agree (99%) that Sharia should be the official law of the land.[13] And among those Afghans who say Sharia should be the law of the land, 61% say it should apply to all citizens.[14]
81% of the Afghans who support Sharia as the official law of the land favor corporal punishments for theft; 85% favor stoning as the punishment for adultery, and 79% favor the death penalty for apostasy.[15]
In terms of honor killings for pre- or extra-marital sex, 60% of Afghans believed honor killings of women were often or sometimes justified; 59% believed the same about killing men in those circumstances.[16]
These are majority views among Afghans that are incompatible with American values and laws.
Integrating into American society
The Afghan values and beliefs mentioned above are major hurdles to the idea of Afghans integrating as a group into American society. In addition, only 5% of Afghans speak English,[17] and the adult literacy rate is only about 43% (although the numbers vary). 66% of Afghans believe Western popular culture harms morality in their country,[18] and 96% believe that trying to convert others to Islam is a religious duty.[19]
These are not harbingers of widespread social/cultural integration by these refugees into American society.
Conclusion
Those on the side of bringing tens of thousands of Afghan refugees into the United States have been able to rely on noble sounding rhetoric and emotional arguments to confront those who are not as enthusiastic about that venture.
However, the facts presented in this article show that in reality these refugees are coming from a culture and a land whose values and history are completely different from, and largely incompatible with, those of the United States.
What is being generally overlooked is that there are more socially/culturally compatible countries for these refugees that actually border Afghanistan. Perhaps what we might “owe” these refugees is assistance in finding refuge in those neighboring countries.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” The Asia Foundation, p. 315, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019_Afghan_Survey_Full-Report_.pdf.
[2] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, pp. 29 and 70, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[3] For why it is not accurate to use the term “suicide bomber” in these circumstances, see my article “Suicide or Paradise?” Arutz Sheva 7 – Israel National News, June 7, 2017, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20604.
[4] Belquis Ahmadi and Rafiullah Stanikzai, “Redefining Masculinity in Afghanistan,” United States Institute of Peace, February 15, 2018, https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/02/redefining-masculinity-afghanistan.
[5] Gender Focus, UNICEF, accessed on August 27, 2021, https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/gender-focus.
[6] Sonia Elks, “Afghan men oppose more women’s rights; elders less hardline,” Reuters, January 29, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-women-equality/afghan-men-oppose-more-womens-rights-elders-less-hardline-idUSKCN1PN0TZ.
[7] Donna Clifton, “Most Women in Afghanistan Justify Domestic Violence,” PRB, September 13, 2012, https://www.prb.org/resources/most-women-in-afghanistan-justify-domestic-violence/.
[8] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, p. 93, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[9] “Afghanistan Flash Surveys on Perceptions of Peace, Covid-19, and the Economy: Wave 1 Findings,” The Asia Foundation, 2020, p. 43, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Afghanistan-Flash-Survey-Wave-1_fullreport_.pdf.
[10] Chris Tomlinson, “French Think Tank Warns Afghan Migrant Increase Means Increased Crime,” Breitbart, August 28, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/08/28/french-think-tank-warns-afghan-migrant-increase-means-increased-crime/.
[11] Aleksandra Sandstrom and Angelina E. Theodorou, “Many countries allow child marriage,” Pew Research Center, September 12, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/12/many-countries-allow-child-marriage/.
[12] “Marriage Laws around the World,” Pew Research Center, https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/09/FT_Marriage_Age_Appendix_2016_09_08.pdf.
[13] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 15.
[14] Ibid., p. 48.
[15] Ibid., pp. 52, 54 and 55.
[16] Ibid., p. 89.
[17] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” p. 336.
[18] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 136.
[19] Ibid., p. 112.
Migration Groups Want $8 Billion for Afghan Migrants
Pro-migration groups want at least $8 billion in Americans’ money — and a new citizenship law — to help fast-track at least 50,000 mostly unvetted Afghan migrants, according to the Washington Post.
“The number we’ve been floating around, just on the back of the napkin, is $5 billion for [the Department of Health and Human Services], $2 billion for [the Department of] State, and $1 billion for [the Department of Homeland Security], at a minimum,” said Mark Hetfield, president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
The advocates also told the Washington Post that they want the incoming Afghans to jump the line in the nation’s asylum courts. The line is several years long because Democrats have allowed at least two million Central American migrants into the United States since 2009 under the claim that they need asylum from crime and poverty. The Post reported:
Congress could create a mechanism to allow them to “adjust” to legal permanent residency, aid groups say, along the lines of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 or more recent programs to aid Iraqis.
The [Afghan] parolees could apply for asylum, stating a fear of persecution if returned to Afghanistan, but the U.S. asylum system is badly overloaded by applicants from the Mexico border.
A survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that the public does not approve of the Democrats’ rush to naturalize tens of thousands of Afghans. A majority of Americans oppose the resettlement of more than 50,000 Afghans in the United States, according to an August 18-19 survey of 1,000 likely voters by Rasmussen.
Refugees walk through the departure terminal to a bus at Dulles International Airport after being evacuated from Kabul following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan on August 31, 2021, in Dulles, Virginia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Many of the migrants could impose more chaotic diversity to Americans’ society, in part, because many are fundamentalist Muslims who lack passports.
Many pro-migration lobby groups are lavishly funded by wealthy pro-migration donors, including Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, and others who hide their identity.
But the groups say they cannot get access to usual spigots of taxpayer cash because many Afghan migrants are being sneaked into the United States via small a side door in U.S. immigration law.
For example, only a few of the Afghans fought alongside the U.S. military, so only a few can get “Special Immigrant Visas” (SIV) created by Congress.
Also, only a few of the migrants were legally approved as refugees amid the rush by thousands of Afghans into American aircraft.
Afghan citizens pack inside a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III, as they are transported from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan, August 15, 2021. The Taliban on Sunday swept into Kabul, the Afghan capital, after capturing most of Afghanistan. (Capt. Chris Herbert/U.S. Air Force via AP)
So most of the roughly 20,000 migrants now in the United States were allowed into the United States via the little-used “parole” side door in U.S. immigration law. The parole side door was intended for a few charitable cases such as sick passengers on an international flight, “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” according to federal law.
President Joe Biden’s border chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, may try to admit 50,000 Afghans via the parole door, Hetfield told the Washington Post.
The requested $8 billion in cash “would give [Afghan] parolees the same amount of assistance as refugees or SIVs would get,” Hetfield said.
The changed citizenship laws would allow the paroled Afghans to quickly win green cards and citizenship, many of whom lack vital identification documents or even endorsements by U.S. soldiers. That fast-track process could deliver tens of thousands from Afghanistan to the polling booths by 2028.
Afghan refugees arrive at Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia while en route to military facilities in the U.S. (Jack Gruber-USA TODAY)
Meanwhile, many millions of Americans are unemployed, earn little money, and have difficulty paying their rents. Much of that economic distress is caused by the federal government’s policy of encouraging migration into the United States.
Overall, Biden’s government is expected to import 1.6 million migrants in 2021, or roughly one migrant for every two American births in the year. This policy extracts many new workers, consumers, and renters from poor countries for the benefit of U.S. employers, investors, and government agencies — and also to eventually deliver many potential voters to the Democratic party.
This policy of extraction migration damages ordinary Americans’ career opportunities, cuts their wages, and raises their housing costs.
More migration also means that coastal investors can hire cheap foreign labor on the coasts instead of investing in heartland jobs or deploying wage-boosting robots. Immigration also shrinks Americans’ political clout and wrecks their open-minded, equality-promoting civic culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment