Connect with us


Not The Onion: Stabbing suspect claims to be a terrorist but police are “keeping an open mind” about motivation



A 19-year-old Afghan citizen with German residency is in custody after allegedly stabbing two American tourists at Central Station in Amsterdam Friday afternoon. Identified as Jawed S, he is believed to have been motivated as an Islamic terrorist to commit the attack.

The suspect claimed in police interviews to be a radical Islamic terrorist. However, police say they’re “keeping an open mind while they investigate further.”

American tourists stabbed in Amsterdam were targeted by Afghan man with a ‘terrorist motive’: officials | Fox News“Based on the suspect’s first statements, he had a terrorist motive,” the city administration said in a statement on Saturday. They did not elaborate on what the statements were or in what ways they might have shown intent.

Still, Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte doubled down on these claims after taking to Twitter to confirm that investigation was zeroing in the role played by extremist ideology.

My Take

This is another example of all indicators pointing towards terrorism but an extended delay before this was begrudgingly acknowledged by local officials and world press. Even after his own admission, officials are skeptical for some reason. It’s to be expected nowadays, but it’s concerning because when terrorism strikes on a mass scale or through coordinated attacks, the reluctance to state the obvious until there’s no way to hide it can end up costing more lives.

When a terrorist says he’s a terrorist, don’t keep an open mind about his motivations. Believe him. He’s a terrorist.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


With fall of the Islamic State’s last stronghold, the real war against them begins



With fall of the Islamic States last stronghold the real war against them begins

The Islamic State was always destined to fall in the way that it has. If they ever got big enough to demand a more direct response from the military forces of the world, that would have happened. Instead, they were only able to become a regional power that caused widespread chaos and despair before the various forces pitted against them were able to back them into the final corner.

That corner just fell.

Now the real war against them begins.

What most Americans don’t know is that the Islamic State was never really about military conquest for land. That was the focus for most, including many within the ranks of the failed militant organization, but those in the know have realized for years the real threat they pose is on the ideological front. While it’s a great thing that they’ve been eliminated militarily according to most reports, there’s an unfortunate effect this will have. The final stronghold falling will inspire the expansion of their other fronts, most notably the terrorist activities of the various groups loosely affiliated with the Islamic State around the world.

Cyberterrorism, physical terrorism, and persecution against non-Muslims in Islamic majority regions will increase. This has been anticipated for over a year now by members of law enforcement in the United States and possibly in other nations. Now that the end is finally here for their direct military wing, the other factions, groups, and lone wolves are suddenly much more dangerous.

I’m keeping this short to get to the point before losing too many people. Now is not the time for much celebration. Let’s pat each other on the back and then move on to the next phase of the battle, one that has been raging for some time but has been overshadowed by the military successes and recent failures. Now, they’ll become top priority. Lest we forget, most of the top leaders of the Islamic State are still out there and active.

Don’t let your guard down for a moment. Remain diligent. Look for signs, such as those that preceded the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Be mindful that with the ISIS military gone, other threats are only going to be elevated.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Immortalising terrorism with gun confiscation will only result in more terrorism




Immortalising terrorism with gun confiscation will only result in more terrorism

Is it fair to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?

Word has it that Jacinda Ardern the Prime Minister of New Zealand will immediately punish millions of innocent people with the taking of their property – at effective gunpoint no less. The plan is to grab the guns first and legislate later. Being that this is exactly what the terrorist wanted, it is the wrong thing to do from a practical and moral standpoint.

Practical because as the miscreant stated, it could have used any number of means to kill people. It is immoral because millions of innocent people will have to pay the price for its insane actions. They will not only be deprived of their property, but they will be left helpless in the face of criminals and terrorists who by definition do not comply with the law.

Why is tyranny quick to exploit a tragedy?

The Prime Minister had stated that previous attempts at depriving the people of their human rights failed to gain any traction. This time in the midst of the raw emotions of the moment the government took quick action to avoid any thoughtful deliberation on this extremely important civil rights question.

If they had contemplated this oppressive action over time, they would have realized that it won’t have the intended result. This will only embolden those who use terrorism to further their goals. This misguided action will only serve to encourage others to attain their own bit of ‘fame’ with these kinds of horrific acts.

As reported in USA Today, In her announcement of the ban and confiscation edict, the Prime Minister of New Zealand forwarded the bizarre presumption that somehow the government was the original owner of these weapons with the line: “We just want the guns back”.

Later on, in the same article, they reported on the statement she had made last Tuesday that

she would deny the man responsible for the nation’s worst terror attack in modern history the one thing he likely craved: fame.

This misguided action by the Prime Minister will have the opposite effect. What better way to gain infamy that to be the reason why millions of people will be deprived of their property and civil rights. This confiscation action will now enshrine the perpetrator of this crime in the history books. This is what happens when someone acts first and thinks later.

Immortalizing a criminal

The miscreant who perpetrated this crime will now be rewarded with exactly what it desired – being immortalized in the history books as the one who caused millions to lose their civil rights.  New Zealand already had strict limitations on Liberty and yet this did nothing to stop this crime from taking place. What will they do the next time around? Take away any remaining firearms in the country? Make no mistake, this will only cause more terrorism and division.

Socialists Bernie Sanders acted quickly to exploit on this serious crisis for political gain with a call for a ‘ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.’ While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez applauded this major denigration of Liberty.

The Takeaway

Leftist often parrot lines about ‘fairness’, ’equality’ and democracy, but this action shows that those are but mere window dressing. They will quickly jettison those precepts when the opportunity to exploit a serious crisis presents itself.

There should be no doubt that more of the Liberty grabber Left in the states will see this ‘progress’ as inspiration to call for gun confiscation as they have far too many times in the past. It will also ‘inspire’ would be terrorists to try to obtain this kind of result in other places. Instead of doing something about terrorism, it will encourage it while endangering the innocent.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

New Zealand’s radical shift on guns is wrong, but understandable



New Zealands radical shift on guns is wrong but understandable

Where I’m at right now, there are nearly as many people in a 10-mile radius as there are in the entire nation of New Zealand. They aren’t accustomed to the carnage they witnessed last week when a neo-fascist terrorist decided to shoot up mosques and kill dozens of people. It’s not that we’re accustomed to it, either, but we’ve seen our share of mass shootings. New Zealand has not.

It’s for this reason it’s understandable that they would react very forcefully and rapidly by pushing through laws that would take it from one of the most gun-friendly nations in the world to being more aligned with the European model. Conservatives in America may not agree with it. We may dread any notion of duplicating their measures here. But we have to be understanding. This wasn’t just shocking for them. It was as close as they’ve had to a 9/11 moment. We all know the reduction of freedoms we’ve been trying to get back ever since our big terrorist event.

New Zealand has around 1.5 million firearms, or one for every three people. Depending on which estimates you use, there is somewhere between one and two firearms per person in the United States. There are more AR-15s in America than there are people in New Zealand. I mention all of this so we can understand the scale of their newfound problem thanks to the terrorist who killed scores of people in Christchurch.

It may be easy for 2nd Amendment defenders in America to scoff at their desire to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, but we have to keep in mind the mentality there towards firearms is much different from ours. They do not view them primarily as objects of defense against tyranny from within our out, as many 2nd Amendment proponents do in America. Instead, they see them as the standard self-defense mechanisms against crime and “critter stoppers,” which is one of the reasons they have “military style” weapons, or as we prefer to call them, “scary looking regular firearms.”

I’m not going to lecture them at this time about the costs to freedom and safety that will come from such actions. They’re going to have to learn on their own. They are unified as a people right now to take away guns, so the best thing gun proponents in New Zealand can do at this point is make valid arguments against the measures without letting emotion get in the way. We’re often stuck making emotional arguments in America simply because it’s emotion that drives both sides of the debate, but the current state of New Zealand is one where there’s no way to use emotional arguments to fight to keep their firearm rights.

Both the ruling party and the opposition party are in agreement about guns, according to 1 News Now:

New Zealand’s leader of the opposition, Simon Bridges, said National welcomed the changes.

“The terrorist attack in Christchurch last week has changed us as a nation.”

This is a difficult argument for me to make because if the same attempts to take firearms were made in America, I’d be locked and loaded. But I have the luxury. Our rights are there for reasons that don’t necessarily exist in New Zealand. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is New Zealand hasn’t had the types of experiences America has had throughout its history where guns were imperative for our nation to continue to operate as it does. Without the 2nd Amendment, America would never have been what it is today. And no, we wouldn’t be better off, either.

New Zealand is going to ban certain firearms. The extent of the damage to their freedoms won’t be known until the dust settles. Once it does, the rebuilding process will begin so New Zealanders can work to get their right to self-defense back.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report