Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
The Paris Attacks, Part One: The Terror of War | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

The Paris Attacks, Part One: The Terror of War

“Outrageous.” “A heartbreaking situation.” No, these are not statements being made regarding the recent gang-banger-induced shooting of 9-year-old Tyshawn Lee. They’re the words being uttered by President Barack Obama about the November 13, 2015, terrorist attacks in Paris. Perhaps the harshest sentiment conveyed by Obama was the moment he referred to the murders as “an act on all of humanity” but when it comes right down to it, the POTUS has taken his typical mild stance following the Paris attacks.

Not so for French President Francois Hollande, who did not hesitate before denouncing the blatantly coordinated attacks as “an act of war.” Hollande declared three days of national mourning time, but he also declared something else: a “merciless” response from France against its attackers. “France will be merciless towards these barbarians from Daesh,” he promised during a press conference. And in just one sentence, Hollande accomplished three things: he made his intentions of a deservedly harsh reaction clear, accurately described the terrorists as the uncivilized monsters they are, and gave ISIS the equivalent of the verbal finger. Outstanding, President Hollande.

Eiffel Tower“Daesh” is a term used as in reference to ISIS most often by Arab states, but there are those in Europe who sometimes use it as well. It’s far less commonly heard in our current administration, although current Secretary of State John Kerry has used it at times. So what does “Daesh” mean?

The word has its roots not in the English language but in Arabic. ISIS is an acronym for English-speakers and, as most now know, stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, although ISIL – Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – is a bit more accurate. Daesh is based on an acronym, too; Daesh is a transliteration – meaning it’s text that’s been converted from one script to another. In this particular case, Daesh – D.A.E.SH. – is a transliteration of an acronym from the Arabic language, the Arabic acronym for ISIS. In Arabic the words are “al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il—i’raaq wa-ash-shaam” and it is technically not a neutral statement; it’s an insult.

NBC News contributor Evan Kohlmann, whose specialty is national security analysis, summarizes “Daesh” thusly: “It’s a derogatory term and not something people should use even if you dislike them. It would be like referring to the Germans as ‘Huns’.” It’s fascinating that Kohlmann chose the comparison of a “Hun” reference to denounce the use of “Daesh.” After all, the term “Huns” goes back to the Hunnic Empire of none other than Attila the Hun who could easily and accurately be described as the most well-known warlord of all time. To the Romans, Attila was known as a barbarian, and to history he is known as a vile megalomaniac who cut a bloody swath across multiple empires. Attila’s name tends to be mentioned in the same breath as other infamous historical figures such as Genghis Khan and, yes, Hitler. During World War I Nazis were often referred to as Huns due to their cold brutality and mercilessness, not to mention the bloodthirsty calculation of their leader, so perhaps it’s the perfect comparison for the use of “Daesh” after all. Insult the killers? How dare you!

Of course, how a word or phrase is used matters, too. Depending on its conjugation, Daesh can actually be translated as “to trample down and crush” which would imply strength in those given the label. However, that is not how it is typically meant. No, those slinging the word “Daesh” around tend to mean it as the other translation: “bigot.” Terrorists hate the phrase so much ISIS has sworn to cut the tongues from anyone who dares to speak the word. Apparently their threats mean nothing to Hollande – or do they?

Paris AttackFrance has been ground zero for numerous terrorist attacks lately, all of which have claimed Islamic ties. From the 2004 bombing of the Indonesian Embassy in Paris to the 2014 Joue-les-Tours stabbing of a police officer to the 2014 vehicular homicides in Dijon and Nantes, France has been under Islamic siege for some time. Then there were the horrific shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Saint-Quentin-Fallavier beheading of Yassine Salhi, who was of North African descent. Let’s not forget the attempted mass shooting on the Thalys train last August which was only thwarted thanks to intervention by a few passengers, two of whom were American service members (Army National Guard and US Air Force, both active duty, and one of whom had just returned from being deployed to Afghanistan). This is just the tip of France’s Islamic iceberg; the attacks have been many, and retaliation on the part of the French has been all but nonexistent. Despite Hollande’s insistence of a “merciless” response and his stellar use of “Daesh,” it would seem France does nothing but give its attackers sanctuary.

The No-Go Zones of France, which are under Muslim control – meaning Sharia Law is openly recognized and French law enforcement has no power – are hotly disputed by some despite ample evidence of their existence. Not only are there videos, audio recordings, photographs, and unending personal witnesses willing to give their own rather terrifying accounts, but the French government took it upon itself to warn its citizens and visitors of these areas. There are not one or two of these areas, either; at last count there were 751 of these so-called Urbaines Sensibles – sensitive urban areas. They’re specifically outlined by street names, and a decade ago there were 5 million people living in those areas – a number that has since grown. The French government spent the time, energy, and, undoubtedly, the finances, necessary to create this detailed list, and they’ve been admitting those zones exist since 1996. And yet they become horribly offended at the slightest suggestion they’ve given in to Muslim demands. In fact, Parisian mayor Anne Hidalgo threatened to sue Fox News last winter for the labeling of the Urbaines Sensibles as Sharia-Law controlled No-Go Zones. It seems to be a case of the French lady doth protest too much.

No Go ZoneOne Frenchman came forward with a lengthy account of his own experiences with the Muslim-controlled areas, detailing his being barred from a building for lack of being Muslim before moving on to much darker territory. He continued: “And this is how it goes in these no-go zones. These Islamist gangsters steal, deal drugs, harass women who are not dressed properly, burn cars, and drink, and if you live there and ever complain, you will take a huge beating! 

I have a friend whose sister was raped in an elevator. The family wanted to go to the police, but the thugs who raped her sister caught her brother and burned cigarettes on his tongue. They warned him that if he ever talked, they would all be finished. Girls get raped and burned in garbage cans in these places. Ilan Halimi was held captive for weeks in places like these.

There are no rules there, especially not for Jews. A Jew in these areas can take a beating at any time! The police do not go in unless they come with huge backup. If a police car gets lost there, it will get smashed to pieces! They provoke fires, so that the firemen come and get stoned! 

But I can tell you that living in these places is no picnic, and all these fake politicians can go live there and see if they can hold on for 10 minutes.”

So while it may be true that there are no formally designated “no-go” zones, there are absolutely areas where non-Muslims fear to tread and law enforcement and first responders alike are without power, openly threatened and unwanted. 751 of these areas, and counting, according to France itself (for the record, there is also rampant evidence of these No-Go Zones in Britain, Germany, and Sweden, among others). Call them what you like, but Sharia Law isn’t a list of rules for kickball, and these dangerous areas continue to grow due in large part to the seemingly hands-off policies of many governments.

Do not misunderstand: there is absolutely no excuse for acts of terrorism whether they’re carried out in France, Afghanistan, or America. Complacency on the part of a country does not equal a free pass for those hell-bent on murdering and terrorizing innocent people, but it does present a spectacular breeding ground for such behavior.

Businessman Andy Grove once said “Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.” Grove grew up in Hungary during Joseph Stalin’s bloody reign, giving him an up-close-and-personal look at what happens when terrorism runs wild. While Stalin’s particular brand of terror may not have been rooted in Islam, it was terror nonetheless. Grove knew what many people seem to be forgetting, or blatantly ignoring: complacency breeds not only failure, but invites someone – anyone – to assert their will, taking over, running roughshod over any who dare protest. In Europe, where gun control is king and firearms are few and far between, people cannot fight back, and their government encourages them not to. Of course, it would not do for the government to fail to set a good example, so the government does not fight back, either.

Will France truly fight back this time? It’s hard to say, but history does tend to repeat itself, and history clearly outlines their habit of backing down from fights such as this.

Sun Tzu said “The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.” Fighting back. Going to war. These are things our founding fathers excelled at, something many Americans today can hardly even begin to fathom. We are supposed to be entrenched in a War on Terror, and yet it would seem we are sliding backwards. We are losing ground, not gaining it, and something’s going to give. France is only one symptom of a greater problem, and that problem is Islam. Until the heart of the matter is dealt with, this will not end.

Time is not running out, it’s long since vanished. It’s time to fight back. Will France fight back? Will the United States? Will you?

We’re about to find out.

Coming Next: Part two – fighting back, and fighting hard.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Katherine Ainsworth

Katherine is a military and political journalist with a reputation for hard-hitting, no-holds-barred articles. Her career as a writer has immersed her in the military lifestyle and given her unique insights into the various branches of service. She is a firearms aficionado and has years of experience as a K9 SAR handler, and has volunteered with multiple support-our-troops charities for more than a decade. Katherine is passionate about military issues and feels supporting service members should be the top priority for all Americans. Her areas of expertise include the military, politics, history, firearms and canine issues.
Katherine Ainsworth

2 thoughts on “The Paris Attacks, Part One: The Terror of War

  1. Very good read! History is a great teacher. Sometimes it requires that we se the wisdom by being good students.

    The Middle East including Turkey sided with Germany during World War I and the result was that the League of Nations abolished the Caliph (the secular head of the faith on the planet). An act that is known as “the great embarrassment.” When the British and Australian forces broke out and drove towards Turkey the fall was swift. It was also ruthless – it was war. Along with abolishing the Caliph, the League of nations divided the middle East into protectorates. While this may be some cause of today’s conflict, it established control in the region into the 1950s. What will it take to establish control today. There are potential jihadists on every continent.

    There is a kind of Islamic tenet that sort of goes like this, “Don’t do anything that jeopardizes the survival of the faith.” The Emir of Tripoli found out about this when Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to have a talk with him about raiding US commercial shipping in the Mediterranean. Sometimes we forget history to our detriment.

    Having learned a terrible and costly lesson from being on the wrong side in World War I,the Middle East sat on the sidelines in World War II. Although many mark the beginning of terrorism with the bombing of the Marine barracks in the early 1980’s, it had already been festering for some time. This has given birth to what we refer to as terrorism or jihad. Complacency of our leaders has allowed this. Jefferson acted swiftly and forcefully. Nations are yet to use the force necessary to stop this threat and must stand together to stop this before it engulfs the world.

    Here we are today with groups acting with a belief that they can act without consequences because western powers are afraid to “loose the dogs of war” on those whose acts are inhuman and who will not stop. While ruthless force of arms is abhorrent to the civilized world it is in fact an appropriate response to whatever threatens the stability and order of lawful, peaceful and innocent people.

    As a righteous man is justified in his indignation so are nations in dealing with a global threat. Terrorists of whatever ilk will only cease in response to force so great that they fear what it will take to stop their actions by what it has taken to stop despots in the past – WAR. This current war has gone on already for almost thirty years or more. How long will governments wait to act in declaring the real “War on Terrorism” that must come? It will not be for the faint of heart or a time for fence sitting. Neither were World War I and World War II.

    Lastly, this is not about a religion but zealots who act against humanity with murder, rape. torture, enslavement, horrific acts of violence, terror and threat as a means of establishing forceful rule and control of both the sovereignty of governments and people. World rule and domination is their goal. What type of world would that be? It is beyond our imagination! It is not a vision I would care to see become a reality.

  2. So Katherine, is the problem Islam? Or is it radicalism? Or is it politics? Or is it politicians? Or is it tolerance? Or is it intolerance? Is it too many guns in the wrong hands? Or is is some complex interaction of these and a number of other swirling factors in a world of continuously changing circumstances?

    If your thesis is that things should not be allowed to go on in the manner that they have in Paris in the past 36 hours, then I can see merit in the thought. But the real issue is – what would you do to change things and what would be the wider ramifications of the changes you would make?

    I look forward to reading your second installment and to hopefully having at least some of these questions answered with detail. The world needs answers, not merely more criticism.

    For example, do the French send in the police or the army to dismantle these sensitive zones? What would the risks be? How do they manage those risks? Is it too late to dismantle such ghettos? Would all Muslims be upset or would it just be the radical few? After all, not all Muslims want to live under Sharia law. Indonesia is perfect example – the largest Muslim nation on earth and no Sharia law. Ate the people who run these zones really adhering to strict Shara law, or at they really lawless thugs hiding behind their ethnicity as happens with other similarly constituted criminal groups?

    Is it too late to close European boarders to the flow of humanity currently working its way north from Africa and he Middle-East? If so, what happens to the thousands of genuinely displaced people amongst whom the terrorists hide.

    This could be a whole series of articles resulting in a dissertation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *