Evasion and Half-Truths: The Dangerous Western Response to this Holiday Season's Looming Islamic Threat

Washington D.C. and Brussels — In an alarming example of transatlantic collusion, FBI Director Christopher Wray and EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson, in their respective roles, have jointly recognized the growing menace of Hamas-inspired terrorism while deliberately concealing its true origins, all of which are rooted in Islamic teachings, sacred texts, and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad himself. This strategy of obfuscation presents a distorted perception of the threat, jeopardizing Western societies by keeping the public in the dark about the real religious and ideological roots of this threat.

Wray’s Testimony — A Narrative of Evasion and Half-Truths

FBI Director Christopher Wray stands before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, delivering a testimony that starkly avoids confronting a critical truth. His discussion on the threat posed by Hamas and its potential to inspire terrorist attacks within the United States is glaringly incomplete. Notably, he conspicuously abstains from using terms like ‘Islamic terrorism.’ This omission is not just a matter of semantics; it reflects a refusal to acknowledge the terrorists for what they are: Muslims driven by a commitment to carry out Islamic Jihad.

As Wray speaks of the FBI’s ongoing investigations into “individuals” linked with Hamas, he carefully sidesteps any direct reference to their Islamic ties. This narrative choice paints a picture of a broader, more nebulous threat, intentionally glossing over the specifics of the “religious” Islamic threat and connections to broader Islamic terrorism and Islamic ambitions in the West.

His testimony takes a more provocative turn when Wray addresses the rise of antisemitism in the U.S. He speaks of the targeting of Jewish communities by a spectrum of “extremists.” Yet despite the fact that these extremists are mainly Muslims; their acts are done explicitly in the name of Allah and for the cause of Islam and Islamic law, Director Wray conspicuously avoids mentioning any connection to Islam. This omission in his narrative paints a skewed picture, one where the reality of the perpetrators’ identities and motives is clouded by political correctness, bureaucratic caution, and fear of violent Islamic repercussions.

Despite overwhelming evidence pointing towards a particular pattern in these Islamic crimes and Muslim threats, the FBI’s approach, as embodied by Wray, is one of denial and deflection. This once again calls into question the efficacy and honesty of the FBI’s approach to tackling Islamic terrorism. A glaring gap exists between the agency’s public statements and the on-ground realities, leading to greater threats to Americans.

The Distinct Nature of Islamic Terrorism

Beyond their pursuit of mass murder plots against innocent populations worldwide, Islamic terrorists share a defining characteristic: they attribute their motivation and success to their religion. This reality starkly distinguishes Islamic terrorism from mere criminal activity. It is the defining attribute of Muslim violence for political and religious purposes. The unique aspect of Islam in the context of religiously motivated violence, is what sets it apart from other religions.

Regrettably, many leaders, law enforcement, media groups, etc., choose to turn a blind eye or reinterpret Islamic terror to align with their political agendas. Yet, the Muslims perpetrating these acts are explicitly clear about their religious conviction driving their actions.

It’s a conviction rooted in the teachings and early history of Islam, which, as discussed elsewhere, explains the violence. As far as Islamic terrorists are concerned, their acts are committed unequivocally in the name of Allah and for the cause of Islam and Islamic law, spanning across the globe.

Johansson’s Calculated Caution: Europe’s Veiled Crisis

EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson echoed a narrative similar to that of FBI Director Wray but with a distinctly European twist. She stood before a gathering of EU dignitaries and media, her speech marked by a strategic avoidance of direct references to Islam in the context of recent terror threats and attacks in Europe.

A Narrative of Deflection: Johansson speaks of the heightened risk of terror attacks following the Gaza conflict, her words carefully chosen to steer clear of any explicit mention of Islamic terror. She delved into the issue of rising antisemitism, yet, in a maneuver of political deftness, she pivots to talk about a supposed parallel threat to the Muslim community. This claim rings hollow, as there is little statistical evidence to back it up. In fact, it is mainly Muslims from within the Islamic communities who have been the aggressors in Europe’s terrorist attacks.

A Misguided Allocation of Resources: Johansson announced the allocation of additional EU funds for security measures. In another misguided attempt at political correctness, these funds are being distributed for the protection of various religious sites, including mosques. However, this is an expenditure with little justification, given the negligible threats to these sites compared to the more frequent attacks on Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims.

Europe faces a “huge risk of terrorist attacks” over the holiday season due to the fallout from the Israel-Hamas war, the EU’s Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson warned on Tuesday #EuropeNews pic.twitter.com/6wppoSg0FS

— euronews (@euronews) December 5, 2023

While Johansson called for a collective response to these “threats,” her speech avoids focusing on the root cause of the problem – Islam. She advocates for unity and vigilance, but her words ring ironic to those who see through the veneer of her politically correct narrative. After all, how can one be vigilant against a threat that not only cannot be named, but is painted as the victims of possible attacks?

Johansson ended her speech, leaving behind a trail of unsaid truths and half-addressed issues. Unfortunately, the EU’s approach to dealing with the Islamic terror threat is by evading addressing the threat and putting the lives of all non-Muslims in Europe under threat.

Unaddressed Security Strategies

Both Wray and Johansson conspicuously avoid naming Islam as the underlying threat, lacking direct measures to combat this source of terrorism. Strategies notably absent from their discussions include:

• Closing Borders: Notably missing is the potential impact of border closures as a counterterrorism measure.
• Deporting Threatening Illegal Residents: The crucial issue of deporting Islamic supremacists, identified as security threats and residing illegally, was overlooked.
• Educating Law Enforcement on Jihad and Islam: The need for law enforcement training on Jihad and Islam, crucial for understanding Islamic terrorism, was ignored.
• Halting Financial Support to Islamic Entities: They did not discuss prohibiting mosques and Islamic organizations from receiving funds from Islamic countries, a strategy to cut off financial support for Jihad.
• Revoking Tax-Exempt Status of Mosques: The possibility of revoking tax-exempt status for mosques, which could provide greater oversight of dangerous Islamic institutions, was not considered.
• Prosecuting Imams and Mosques for Incitement: There was no mention of legal action against imams and mosques involved in grooming or inciting Muslims toward terrorism.

These gaps in the approaches of Wray and Johansson once again highlight their reluctance to confront the Islamic terrorist threat head-on.

The deliberate omissions by leaders like Wray and Johansson place America and Europe in grave danger, showing little hope for the West’s preparedness against Islamic terrorism. Their approach exponentially multiplies the perils of ignoring the roots of terrorism for diplomatic niceties, and emphasizes the vulnerability and unpreparedness of societies that fail to confront and name the sources of terrorism—in this case, Islam—directly.