Think Or Sink: Top Jihadist Killed

The fight between French police and Jihadists in Saint Denis was so violent, that part of the building collapsed and carpenters were moved in to hold build structures to shore up the building as the enquiry proceeds (including DNA collect).

It was a gory fight: one Jihadist got an exploding grenade in the belly, spilling his unworthy guts all over. The shootout was so severe, it’s not clear whether 2 or 3 terrorists were killed. One of the corpses was so riddled with bullets, it was not clear who he was. He was identified by his prints.

It turned out to be the most wanted terrorist in the world, 28 year old Abdelhamid Abaaoud.

This Belgian Muslim, native from a Jihad city in Belgium, organized many successful attacks (at least 6) and several were carried out, including the ones in Paris last week. His ascent in the Islamist State was fast. Interestingly he went in and out of Europe in the last few months, although he had the time to drag for Western TV many bodies behind a SUV. That Abaaoud could come and go at will condemns the present European security system. Europe needs a kind of FBI or FSB. Once again, more, and fiercer United States of Europe are needed, here purely for security reasons.

The Republic Protects Its Property, Notre Dame

The Republic Protects Its Property, Notre Dame

The commando was planning two attacks against Paris’ largest and most famous department stores (apparently a tip from Moroccan intelligence helped).

French forensic experts are examining remains of the woman who blew herself up. She is believed to be Islamic State’s Hasna Aitboulahcen. The Frenchwoman, aged 26, was heard engaging in an hysterical exchange with police shortly before she triggered a suicide belt. At some point, she screamed: “HELP ME, HELP ME, HELP ME!” to the police, which, in reply told her to come out hands up.

Aitboulahcen, a cousin of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was “extrovert”, “bubbly” and a “bit lost”. “She didn’t look like a suicide bomber and she drank alochol,” one of her young neighbours at the Impasse du Dauphin told the local newspaper Le Républicain Lorrain. “We saw her quite often and we called her the cowgirl because she always wore a large hat.” She was a “tomboy” who dressed in jeans, trainers and a black hat until she began wearing a niqab eight months ago.

Analyzing her patterns from various surveillance led the RAID (French SWAT) to attack at 4:20 am a building full of low lives.

The French Parliament has extended the state of emergency for a further three months. Hopefully things will be taken more seriously than in 1939-1940.

PM Valls admitted that one could fear a chemical, or biological attack. (One more reason to annihilate the Islamist State fast!) At least one, maybe two, of the November 13 terrorists are still on the run.

The Islamist State gets roughly two million dollars a day from selling oil, at half price on the black market (enabled by plutocrats). That was until the Franco-Russian bombing campaign against oil installations. This week.

The Islamist State also makes drugs, and sells them, earning at least half a million dollars a day. One of these drugs is Captagon, an ex-medical drug, related to amphetamines, outlawed since 1986 because it makes people crazy. Attacking terrorists are full of Captagon and cocaine. Makes them fearless. There too, the plutocrats are a crucial link.

A few months ago, a Saudi prince was arrested in Beirut, Lebanon. He had six tons of Captagon in his private jet. Captagon costs nothing to make, but sells around fifty dollars a pill.

Meanwhile the French Prime Minister received the PM of Qatar. Qatar, at the very least, enables the Islamist State, and, at worst, finances it. Saudi Arabia and the likes of Qatar have to be told, strongly

The novelist Michel Houellebecq struck hard in a commentary on Corriere de la Sera, and the New York Times. What he says is part of what I have long said, for example in:

“The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor

Michel Houellebecq: How France’s Leaders Failed Its People


Paris — IN the aftermath of the January attacks in Paris, I spent two days transfixed watching the news. In the aftermath of the Nov. 13 attacks, I hardly turned on the television; I just called the people I knew (no small number) who lived in the neighborhoods that were hit. You get used to terrorist attacks.

In 1986, there was a series of bombings in various public places in Paris. I think Hezbollah was behind those attacks. They occurred a few days, or maybe a week, apart; I’ve forgotten exactly. But I remember very well the atmosphere in the subway that first week. The silence inside the cars was absolute, and people exchanged glances loaded with suspicion.

That was the first week. And then, soon enough, conversations resumed, the mood returned to normal. The prospect of another imminent explosion was still there in everyone’s mind, but it had retreated into the background. You get used to terrorist attacks.

France will hold on. The French will hold on, without even needing a “sursaut national,” a national pushback reflex. They’ll hold on because there’s no other way, and because you get used to everything. No human force, not even fear, is stronger than habit.

“Keep calm and carry on.” All right, then, that’s just what we’ll do (even though, alas, there is no Churchill to lead us). Despite the common perception, the French are rather docile, rather easy to govern. But they are not complete idiots. Instead, their main flaw is a kind of forgetful frivolity that necessitates jogging their memory from time to time.

There are people, political people, who are responsible for the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today, and sooner or later their responsibility will have to be examined. It’s unlikely that the insignificant opportunist who passes for our head of state, or the congenital moron who plays the part of our prime minister, or even the “stars of the opposition” (LOL) will emerge from the test looking any brighter.

Who exactly weakened the capacities of the police forces until they were totally on edge and almost incapable of fulfilling their mission? Who exactly drilled into our heads for years the notion that borders were a quaint absurdity, and evidence of a foul and rancid nationalism?

The blame, as one can see, is widely shared.

Which political leaders committed France to ridiculous and costly operations whose main result has been to plunge Iraq, and then Libya, into chaos? And which political leaders were, until recently, on the verge of doing the same thing in Syria?

(I was forgetting: We didn’t go into Iraq, not the second time. But it was close, and it looks as though Dominique de Villepin, then minister of foreign affairs, will go down in history for that reason — which is not nothing — for having prevented France, for the one and only time in its recent history, from participating in a criminal operation that also distinguished itself for its stupidity.)

The obvious conclusion is scathing, unfortunately. For 10 (20? 30?) years, our successive governments have pathetically, systematically, deplorably failed in their essential mission: to protect the population under their responsibility.

As for the population, it hasn’t failed at all. It’s unclear, at bottom, exactly what the population thinks, since our successive governments have taken great care not to hold referendums (except for one, in 2005, on a proposed European constitution, whose result they then preferred to ignore).

But opinion polls are allowed, and for what they’re worth, they more or less reveal the following: that the French population has always maintained its trust in and solidarity with its police officers and its armed forces. That it has largely been repelled by the sermonizing airs of the so-called moral left (moral?) concerning how migrants and refugees are to be treated. That it has never viewed without suspicion the foreign military adventures its governments have seen fit to join.

One could cite many more examples of the gap, now an abyss, between the population and those supposed to represent it. The discredit that applies to all political parties today isn’t just huge; it is legitimate.

And it seems to me, it really seems to me, that the only solution still available to us now is to move gently toward the only form of real democracy: I mean, direct democracy.


(Michel Houellebecq is the author, most recently, of the novel “Submission.”)

Funny how the Main Stream Media (MSM), usually busy censoring me, when not outright banning me, is calling to a market certified writer of bedtime stories, instead of a real philosopher. Funny, but typical. In France the wildly respected “La Grande Librairie” shows an unending parade of success authors who are as dumb as they are imagination deprived (I record the show, but find it more boring than washing dishes, a time when I can listen to myself, instead of rich, fashionable idiots).

This being said, I approve much of Houellebecq’s message above (although I disagree 100% about Libya. The problem in Libya was no follow up; and it’s not too late for that; I also disagree about borders). I sent the following comment (it was immediately censored: NYT has faithfully censored me about terrorism, it’s the apparent religion there; if I  made a comment about olive oil, The Guardian censors me, better safe than sorry… If you preach the Qur’an, they love you, if you preach the truth, they hate you, it all fits very well together):

Patrice Ayme: We have to change our philosophical attitude relative to reality. “Radical Islam” is, as its name indicates, and as the Islamist State forcefully insists, the roots (that’s what radical means) of Islam.

There are literally hundreds of verses in the holy Qur’an, which guide the Islamist State. Moreover, both taqiyyah (lying for the faith) and the doctrine which says that older verses are overruled by more recent ones, established the hierarchy of values which guide radical Islamism.

More precisely, Islam out of the Qur’an, direct and literal is, clearly a call to war against most categories of people. This is neither known, nor, a fortiori, understood. Why? My personal experience is revealing: I quoted the Qur’an many times in comments to the Main Stream Media, and was censored, every single time. This is extraordinary: let’s imagine that I quoted the Bible. Would I be censored? Even the Islamist State does not censor the Qur’an! Instead, the Islamist State applies a strict interpretation of the Islamist doctrine.

Thus, one must recognize that Salafism (that is, the way of the old ones), literal Islam out of the Qur’an is not acceptable (not anymore as a strict application of the Bible would be tolerable). Instead of has to promote an Islam submissive to the laws of the Republic and Democracy. As “Islam” means “Submission”, one has just to say Islam is Submission to Republic and Democracy. “Democracy” = People-Rule. It does not mean that an oligarchy of politicians rule.

The West has rotten by the head. Plutocracy, austerity, terrorism, the destruction of the biosphere, are just consequences of this general failure.

Meanwhile, I will revert to listening to the congenital opportunist morons who take themselves for leaders. Especially the way the presidential idiot ends nearly every single sentence as if he were a little girl of a particularly weak disposition, on the verge of bursting in tears. My own daughter, who just turned six, has a much firmer voice.

And the weakness of Hollande and the “congenital moron who plays Prime Minister” is not just cosmetic: since the attacks against Charlie Hebdo, they did basically NOTHING. The rector of the Paris Mosque is indignant and astounded that NO Salafist mosque was shut down. Ever. He says it’s a police problem, a non-respect of the law of the Republic, and he calls for the shutting down of Salafism (which he class “Non-Islamist”: I would say the same if I were him, just as he would say what I say, if he were me!)

Think. Or sink.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Think Or Sink: Top Jihadist Killed”

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Think. Or sink.”
    Chris Snuggs: Many cannot detach themselves from their upbringing so that they can think objectively. This is called brainwashing of course, and undoing it is unbelievably difficult.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Moods are the architects of systems of minds. Once a brain has been built, it’s a physical object, washing it won’t change a thing, not anymore than washing a skyscarapper changes it. .


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: