How many bullets can the United States dodge before it experiences the third installment to 9/11 and Paris’ 11/13? This is a pressing question with the revelation that almost 70 ISIS-linked plotters in the United States have been arrested during the last 18 months alone — and that among them are “refugees” granted entry by American authorities. As the Daily Mail reported Wednesday:
Analysis by Daily Mail Online reveals that a handful of foiled plots have already involved immigrants accused of harboring sympathy for ISIS.
The threat also comes from within, with American teenagers and Islamic converts among those seduced by the group’s torrent of chilling online propaganda.
They include a U.S. Air Force veteran accused of waging war on the country he once served and a National Guard soldier who allegedly plotted to gun down his own colleagues.
Others are seemingly ordinary American citizens, including a young nurse, a pizza parlor boss and schoolgirls tricked into becoming shrouded ISIS brides.
Some have conspired to travel or send friends abroad to link up with fundamentalist fighters while others have planned for jihad closer to home — with Capitol Hill among the targets for a foiled bombing raid.
These revelations call into question many claims made by Barack Obama and others advocating the acceptance of Muslim migrants from the terrorism-plagued region. First is Obama administration officials’ assertion that “vetting” can weed out bad-apple newcomers. As CNN reported, “On NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said, ‘We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who have come to the United States. There is a very careful vetting process that includes our intelligence community, our National Counter Terrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security, so we can make sure that we are carefully screening anybody that comes to the United States.’”
Yet as American Thinker’s James Simpson pointed out Tuesday while addressing the databases necessary for vetting:
[Syria] is a nation in the midst of a civil war, whose government is an enemy of the U.S. If there were any such databases available, FBI Director James Comey would have confirmed this. Instead, he specifically stated the opposite, as did his counterterrorism chief, Michael Steinbach, in testimony before Congress. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said the prospect of ISIS gaining access to the U.S. through the refugee program is a “huge concern.” Even [Secretary of Homeland Security] Jeh Johnson has admitted that they don’t really know who the refugees are. All of those whose job it is to protect our nation from attack have raised a red flag, noting that Syrian refugees cannot be vetted.
And the proof is in the pudding. The Mail outlines the cases of six Bosnian Muslim refugees — who fled the war in Yugoslavia — only to turn around and aid ISIS and other Muslim radicals making war in Syria. Another such man is 21-year-old Abdurahman Yasin Daud, who was born at a refugee camp in Kenya.
Daud also is illustrative of another point. Note that I wrote earlier this week:
There’s also a fundamental problem with vetting that goes unmentioned: even with complete information, it tells you only about the past.
It cannot tell you about the future.
In other words, even if … one million migrants have “clean records,” how many will become terrorists in the future? Again, 1/10th of one percent is 1,000.
And here’s what the Mail reported Wednesday: Daud “arrived in the US when he was nine, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune.” And by 21, he was jihad-ready.
In a similar vein, I also wrote:
And what of their [migrants] children? How many of them will become terrorists? One response here is that the children will be more integrated and thus the problem should diminish over time. This is logical, but, unfortunately, also apparently untrue. For studies have shown that young Muslims in Europe are actually more radical than their elders.
As for the elders, radicalism may be more prevalent among them than people think. A recent poll showed that a slim majority of U.S. Muslims prefer being governed by Sharia law than American civil law. Just as shockingly, as American Thinker’s Sierra Rayne reported Wednesday, “A new poll by the Pew Research Center reveals significant levels of support for ISIS within the Muslim world. In 11 representative nation-states, up to 14 percent of the population has a favorable opinion of ISIS, and upwards of 62 percent ‘don't know’ whether or not they have a favorable opinion of the Islamist group.”
What does this mean in raw numbers? As Rayne sums up, “For these 11 nation-states alone, the favorability ratings for ISIS reported by the Pew poll are indicative of at least 63 million ISIS supporters — and potentially upwards of 287 million if the undecided are included in the calculation. These numbers suggest there are, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of ISIS supporters worldwide.”
So assuming the poll is accurate, what does probability dictate? If the United States admits impossible-to-vet Muslim migrants, between 1 out of 25 and 1 out of 6 will be supporters of a group that crucifies Christians, kills children, sets people alight, and drowns them in cages. Also consider that these numbers would be low if some respondents were reluctant to answer the pollsters honestly.
Returning to the Mail, its reportage brings us to another interesting point. Critics of Islam are often called “racist” even though Muslims aren’t a racial group but a religious one. And the rainbow-coalition reality of Islamic jihad is evident in the arrests made during the last 18 months. The aforementioned Bosnian refugees are all white. The terrorists also include black American Muslim converts such as Air Force veteran Tairod Nathan Webster Pugh; white American Muslim converts such as Michael Todd Wolfe; and Hispanic plotter Miguel Moran Diaz, who called himself a “Lone Wolf” for “ISIS.” Of course, it should be noted that in terms of correct anthropological categorizations, Arabs themselves are classified as Caucasian.
The point is that the matter of Islamic jihad isn’t about race or ethnicity but belief, and “belief determines behavior,” as author Zig Ziglar put it. And if we wouldn’t let someone reside in our home among our children without considering his possibly harboring radical beliefs, should we admit people into our national home without doing so?