Jihadis Living on Support Payments from the Europe They Vowed to Destroy
Four years ago, the British liberal newspaper, The Guardian, ran a story about the "survivors of Guantanamo", the "victims of America's 'icon of lawlessness'", "Britain's survivors of the detention centre that has been called the 'gulag of our times'". The article featured a photograph of Jamal al Harith.
Al Harith, born Ronald Fiddler, a Christian convert to Islam, returned to Manchester from detention at Guantanamo Bay thanks to activism of David Blunkett, Home Secretary of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Al Harith was immediately welcomed in England as a hero, the innocent victim of the unjust "war on terror" after September 11. The Mirror and ITV gave him £60,000 ($73,000) for an exclusive interview about his experience at Guantanamo. Al Harith was also compensated with one million pounds by the British authorities. The victim of the "gulag of our times" bought a very nice house with the taxpayers' cash. A few weeks ago, al Harith made his last "journey": he was blown up in Mosul, Iraq, on behalf of the Islamic State. Al Harith had also been recruited by the non-governmental organization "CAGE" (formerly known as "Cageprisoners") as part of its testimony advocating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Celebrities such as Vanessa Redgrave, Victoria Brittain, Peter Oborne and Sadiq Khan appeared at CAGE's fundraising events. The NGO has been funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, a fund created by the chocolate magnate, and by the Roddick Foundation, the charity of Anita Roddick. Al Harith was also invited to the Council of Europe, to give testimony against retaining Guantanamo. Al Harith's story reveals the depth of one of Europe's biggest scandals: the jihadis' use of European cradle-to-grave entitlements to fund their "holy war". Europe gave them everything: jobs, homes, public assistance, unemployment benefits, relief payments, child benefits, disability payments, cash support. These Muslim extremists, however, do not see this "Dependistan", as Mark Steyn called the welfare state, as a sign of generosity, but of weakness. They understand that Europe is ready to be destroyed. They have no respect for it. From Marseille to Malmö, many Muslim children have been raised to despise the societies that have made them so comfortable. Most Islamists in Europe are now living on support payments from the nations they had vowed to destroy. A few days ago, the Danish press revealed that the Danish government has been paying sickness and disability benefits to Muslim extremists fighting in Syria for the Islamic State. "It is a huge scandal that we disburse money from the welfare fund in Denmark for people who go to Syria," said Employment Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. The terrorists who struck Paris and Brussels have also used the generous British welfare system to fund their jihad. It is emerging from a trial in the UK that Mohamed Abrini, known as "the man with the hat" after the deadly attack at Brussels airport, received £3,000 in benefits before flying to Paris and disappearing. It is not the first time that the role of the welfare state emerges in the Islamic infrastructure of terror:
Public policy goals instead need to be to move people off welfare -- shown to be basically a disincentive to looking for work -- except in extraordinary cases, and toward personal responsibility. There need to be legal limits on the uses to which welfare funds can be put -- for example, welfare funds should not to be used for purchasing illegal drugs, for gambling, for terrorism or, as there is no free speech in Europe anyway, for promoting terrorism. One could create and fine-tune such a list. Disregarding the limitations could result in losing the benefits. Measures such as that would will help fight against the ghettoization and Islamization of Europe's Muslims. Who is winning here? Democracy or Islamic extremism? The cycle of welfare and jihad needs to be stopped. Now. Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
|
It’s now been months upon months of speculation about the supposedly
nefarious connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government. Democrats have relied on Trump begging Russian dictator
Vladimir Putin publicly to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, connections between
former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and the Russian government,
and friendliness between Trump advisor General Michael Flynn and the
Russians in order to suggest that Putin “hacked the election” on Trump’s
behalf. They’ve also relied on various media reports suggesting that the
intelligence community was participating in some sort of sophisticated
surveillance operation that caught up Trump associates in chats with the
Russian government.
There’s a lot of smoke.
VIDEONo evidence yet of Trump team, Russia collusion -U.S. lawmaker
Here’s the problem: there’s no fire.
At all.
We’re now six months in. Have we seen a single piece of actually
incriminating evidence suggesting that Putin “hacked the election” on
Trump’s behalf? Or have we just seen rumors and innuendos, all disowned
in the ninth paragraph of a New York Times report headlining Trump-Russia
contacts?
Here’s what we actually know.
1. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Said There
Was No Evidence of Collusion. Speaking with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Clapper
was asked if there was evidence of collusion. Clapper: “Not to my knowledge.”
According to Clapper, collusion or collaboration or uncovered information did
not exist while he was there – i.e. up until January 20th. As Matt Taibbi of
Rolling Stone says, “This is the former Director of National Intelligence
telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government,
the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s
campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.” Clapper also told
ABC News, “There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, of collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
2. Members of Trump’s Campaign Talked To The Russians – But There’s
No Proof of Wrongdoing.There have been multiple media reports suggesting
that the intelligence community knew that Trump associates were talking with
the Russians. Each and every one of those reports contains the information
that there’s no evidence that anybody did anything wrong, and that campaign
officials often speak with foreign officials. As Andrew McCarthy of National
Review notes, The New York Times ran with a hot-button piece titled,
“Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates” the
day before Trump’s inauguration. The story contained this little detail, buried
down in the article: “It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had
anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also
unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts
to disrupt the elections in November.” Oops.
3. The FBI Denies It Was Targeting Trump. After President Trump tweeted
that the Obama administration had targeted him for wiretapping, FBI Director
James Comey asked the Justice Department to confirm that such a claim was
absolutely false. According to The New York Times, “FBI officials are said to
be worried that the notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public’s
expectations that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating
the Trump campaign in colluding with Russia’s efforts to disrupt the presidential
election.” In other words, they have no such evidence. So Trump’s attempt to
target Obama inadvertently exposed the fact that there’s no evidence the
intelligence community thought Trump was in cahoots with Putin.
4. Even Democrats Are Backing Off The Trump-Russia Connections
Narrative. Last week, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) said on MSNBC that
there were “transcripts that provide very helpful, very critical insights into
whether or not Russian intelligence and senior Russian political leaders,
including Vladimir Putin, were cooperating, were colluding with the Trump
campaign at the highest levels to influence the outcome of our election.” This
week, Coons admitted he didn’t know of any “conclusive proof” that any
such collusion took place, as John Sexton of Hot Air points out.
So far, it’s all implications and innuendos. There’s no hard evidence here.
That doesn’t explain why Trump would have the platform changed on Ukraine,
or why he seems so all-fired fascinated by Putin. But the suggestion that
Trump worked with Putin to steal the election appears to be sheer leftist fantasy.