Separatist leader in Ukraine assassinated in cafe bombing

File photo of Alexander Zakharchenko. AP.

Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self proclaimed Donetsk Republic, has been assassinated in a bombing at a cafe. AP. Zakharchenko was the most important leader of the rebellion against Ukraine and was backed by Russia. The death was caused by a bombing at a popular cafe called "Separ" in honor of the rebels. Ukraine and Russia had dueling claims of responsibility. Ukraine believes that Zakharchenko was killed by his own side, either in a power struggle or because he had became a liability for the Russians. Russia says that the Ukrainians were likely responsible, possibly with American help. 

My Comment:

Ukraine has fallen by the wayside in terms of active wars. There is still some fighting and death going on but it's not anywhere near the level it used to be. The conflict there has largely burnt out as both sides attempt to lick their wounds and recover from the war which was devastating to all involved. 

It's clear though that the war's embers could flare up again. The assassination of one of the most important leaders in a terrorist attack is something that could cause it to reignite. Zakharchenko wasn't the biggest name in international politics but he was a major player in the Ukraine drama and his lose could have major repercussions. 

So who did it? I doubt that the Ukrainians are right. I doubt that the Russians turned on him as he seemed like he was loyal to him. That explanation doesn't make much sense. It is possible that he was killed in an internal power struggle but I find that fairly unlikely as well. I won't rule it out either though. 

I think Russia's explanation makes more sense. I doubt America had anything to do with it though. We usually use drones to attack our enemies, not low scale bombings like this. Plus we have little reason to risk a wider conflict in Ukraine after it has already calmed down. Our president doesn't seem to be that interested in starting up new conflicts. 

If anyone was responsible, I would bet on it being the Ukranians. They wanted to make Zakharchenko pay for his role in the revolution. They considered him a traitor and I have no doubt if he had been captured he would have either spent the rest of his life in jail or he would have been executed. They had the motive, means and opportunity to do so and I would not be at all surprised if they did it. 

So will this lead to more fighting? I kind of doubt it. Like I said both sides were pretty devastated during the war and neither side is strong enough to wipe out the other. And Russia is much more focused on their Syria adventure than Ukraine. There might be a small uptake in fighting but I kind of doubt it. Despite Zakharchenko's death I see it being status quo in Ukraine for the foreseeable future. 

The last major battle in Syria is about to begin with rebel and terrorist held Idlib province comes into the crosshairs.

Rebel held Idlib city. Reuters. 

The last major battle in the Syrian Civil War is going to begin in rebel held Idlib province. Reuters. Rebels, along with 10,000 foreign fighters belonging to al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, still hold Idlib which is the last province where that is the course. The UN fears that heavy weapons and chemical weapons could be used by both sides in the conflict as both the Syrian regime and al-Nusra Front have access to chlorine. Idlib has long been used as a dumping ground for rebel and terrorists who cut deals with the Syrian government.

Meanwhile Russia has deployed a major fleet to the Mediterranean. AP.  Russia has sent eight additional ships to reinforce the Mediterranean fleet, including a cruiser and two submarines capable of launching cruise missiles. 15 ships in total are now stationed in the Mediterranean. 

My Comment:

Looks like the Syrian Civil War may finally be reaching the end game. This is the last major area under rebel control in all of Syria. The only other rebel controlled area is the US backed rebel enclave in Tanf near the border with Iraq and Jordan. ISIS still has pockets of control in the southern desert and eastern border area. Of course the Turks still control part of the border and the Kurds control about a quarter of the country but everything else is in regime hands. 

The battle of Idlib is likely to be one of the most bloody and destructive of the war. Unlike previous battles against the rebels I don't expect another deal to be made. Idlib in the past has acted as a pressure valve that allowed rebels to retreat and not be slaughtered. There is nowhere left in the country for these rebels to retreat to with the possible exception of the American and Turkish enclaves. And that only counts for the more secular rebels. Al-Nusra has nowhere to run. 

I am not surprised that the media is focused on the potential of civilian casualties. I agree that there is a good chance of major civilian casualties but I think that is offset by the fact that if the regime wins, the war ends. Allowing the war to drag on any further than it has would be unconscionable at this point so even if civilians die it will be worth it to end the war.  

There are legitimate fears that both sides may use chlorine gas as a weapon. Both the regime and al-Nusra have used chemical weapons in the past and have access to chlorine. My guess is that if anyone uses chemical weapons it will be al-Nusra. They have basically nothing to lose and know that if they do use chemical weapons it will be blamed on the regime, even if they are the victims. 

The regime has little reason to use chemical weapons. They are winning the war and gain almost nothing from using chemical weapons. They can just use conventional weapons, airstrike and cruise missiles from their Russian allies to gain a similar results. Plus they know the international community will not stand for it and may even cause another round of airstrikes from the United States. 

Russia seems a bit loaded for bear in this case. They have deployed a massive fleet to the Mediterranean to help with the offensive. That fleet can launch cruise missiles to support the offensive but I don't think that's the only reason they are their. Certainly that role is important too but I think they are their for a different reason.

That fleet will give America and Europe reason to worry if they were to launch strikes against the Syrian regime. Not only do those ships have a powerful anti-air capability they provide a powerful deterrent to anyone who doesn't want a larger war with Russia, which should be anyone and everyone. 

People are worried that the battle for Idlib could be a tinderbox that could cause a wider war, but I doubt it. Even if Syria does use chemical weapons, and remember they have little reason to do so, I doubt that any strikes would be in the area the Russians are active in. We can launch cruise missiles from very far away. But I doubt even that will happen. 

I do hope that this battle goes quickly and that the regime is victorious. Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator but he's a better alternative to the terrorist dominated rebels. And even if he wasn't there is basically no chance of the rebels to win. All that prolonging the war will accomplish is more deaths, more refugees and more destruction. Hopefully it will be all over soon. 

Judge dismisses all charges for three of five defendants in the New Mexico child abuse compound case.

An aerial view of the New Mexico compound. USA Today/AP.

A New Mexico judge has dismissed charges for three of the five suspects in the New Mexico compound case. USA Today/AP. The suspects were accused of neglecting 11 children, training them to commit terror attacks, abducting an additional child and having that child die in their care. The judge in the case dismissed the charges against Lucas Morten, Hurah Wajhaj and Subhannah Wahhabj. The charges against the remaining two suspects remain and the ringleader of the case, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj still faces charges in Georgia for the abduction of his son. The case was dismissed due to prosecutors missing a 10 day deadline to establish probable cause for the neglect charges. 

My Comment:

What an outrage. From what I have seen though, this isn't really the judges fault as he had little choice but to comply with the law. It was the prosecutors that failed and failed badly. After the arrests were made they had 10 days to establish probable cause and they did not do so. From what it sounds like the prosecutors were unmotivated in this case and simply let it fall apart. That's why I have little faith that they will take the other option available to them which is going to a grand jury. 

Such a case should have been very easy to establish. The children at this compound were malnourished and living in absolute squalor. The other adults in this case knew about it and could have cared for them but didn't. They also were training these children in small arms and were reportedly plotting school shootings and other terror attacks. That should be enough to file charges but it seems like the prosecutors didn't even bother to make these facts known to the court. 

The good news is that the most dangerous of the suspects is still in custody and is unlikely to leave it anytime soon. Siraj Ibn Wahhaj's charges were not dismissed and even if they were he still has to face extradition to Georgia for his abduction of his son. He was the ringleader and the most likely to do something if let out. His wife is also being detained and still has charges as well so at least two out of the five are still in custody. They should not be getting out anytime soon. 

Still, it's not like the rest of these defendants are good people. At the very least they didn't decide to leave when Wahhaj started to plan terror attacks and stood by as the children starved and one of them was abducted and died. I am betting that they were more involved in that and were partially responsible for the death of Wahhaj's son and were helping him plan his terror plots. These are extremely dangerous people and there is no way that they should ever be walking the streets as it appears they will be now. 

This case has already gone through one massive outrage this month as the suspects in this case were allowed out on a $20,000 signature bond when it was clear that there was a clear and present danger posed by them. It seems very clear that the New Mexico authorities are not taking this case seriously. It's like they want these people free and back on the streets. 

Keep in mind how dangerous what Wahhaj was planning is. Even if it was just him and a couple of the kids he could have caused absolute chaos if he launched several attacks at once. If, for example, he and two of the kids hit three different schools at the same time the police could have been totally overwhelmed. And the same could be true if all three of them hit the same school. And this is with the assumption that it would only be Wahhaj and a couple of the kids. Lucas Morten and the women in this case, as well as more of the children, could have attacked as well. I don't think I am wrong when I say that this could have been the worst mass shooting since the Las Vegas attacks and may have even surpassed it. 

There is a theory among Paleoconservatives that I like called “anarcho-tyranny". It basically means a state where normal law abiding civilians face the full force of the law but where real criminals are allowed to roam free unpunished. It seems very clear that in New Mexico at least they are living in an anarcho-tyranny as these criminals were just allowed out. 

This story is being widely covered by the media, to their credit, but it is being suppressed by the big tech companies. I had to actively search for it on google news as it was not a top story in their USA section, though given the outrage it probably should have been. On Twitter the story is not trending despite many people tweeting about it including right wing personalities like former governor Mike Huckabee and actor James Woods. I personally think that this story is a huge one and one that raises many questions. 

Let's just go through those questions. First of all, why was the site under FBI surveillance and why did it fall to local cops to raid this compound? Why did the prosecutors fail at both the bail hearing and why didn't they file probable cause paperwork? What are the connections between Wahhaj, his father (an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and various politicians and pundits? How many more compounds like this exist in this country? What really happened with Wahhaj's son and how did he die? Why was the compound destroyed by the government? I don't have the answers for any of those questions but they deserve answers and these suspects deserve more scrutiny. 

I do have to say that in more sane time we could at least rely on the federal government to step in after the local authorities messed up. I don't see that happening right now. The Justice Department seems especially reluctant to take any cases that are even remotely political with all their attention focused on the stupid Mueller Probe. And keep in mind that the feds already screwed this case up with the FBI refusing to do anything about this compound even though it should have been clear that at the very least child abuse was going on. I don't expect much more to be done at the federal level and if the local prosecutors screw up again I expect the other two defendants to go free as well... 

China is reportedly building a military training base in Afghanistan.

Chinese troops training in Djibouti. South China Morning Post. 

China is reportedly building a military training base in Afghanistan to assist the Afghan government in their wars against the Taliban and ISIS. SCMP. Once the base is complete China is expected to send a battalion of combat troops, roughly 500, to the site. The base will be located in the Wakhan corridor which is a strip of land owned by Afghanistan between Pakistan, China and Tajikistan. The Wakhan corridor borders China's Xinjiang area, which is dominated by Muslims. China has cracked down on Muslims due to several attacks in the region and they fear that the rebels in the region, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, could end up joining the Taliban. China also has economic interests in Afghanistan as the country is rich in minerals and straddles a critical trade route. 

My Comment:

This story is getting ignored in western media but that's nothing new. The South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's paper of record is one of the only outlets covering this crucial story. Good on them for covering a critical story. 

It seems very clear that China is intent on joining the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan could certainly use the help. They are losing the war against the Taliban and if it wasn't for ISIS fighting both sides and the large US intervention they would have already lost the war. Though the deployment of 500 troops on a training mission won't change the outcome of the war it will be welcome. Afghanistan is in no position to refuse any help they may receive, even though I am sure that this assistance comes with strings attached. 

China has a lot of different reasons to do this. The most obvious is their security concerns. The Xinjiang area, with the Uygur Muslims, has been a thorn in their sides for quite some time now. The Muslims in that region are opposed to the communist regime and have conducted several high profile terror attacks and regularly practice civil disorder in a country that has zero tolerance for it. 

China has a real fear that the Taliban or ISIS could join forces with the Uygur groups in China and could provide them with weapons and training. The attacks in China have largely been low scale and primitive but if these people were to get weapons and explosives, the situation could easily descend into open rebellion. That's unlikely to happen as long as the Taliban and ISIS are fighting the Afghan government but if they were to win it would probably happen very quickly. 

China also has some obvious economic interests in Afghanistan as well. The country has one of the largest reserves of minerals in the world and if they were functional in any way they would be an economic powerhouse. China obviously wants access to those minerals and you can see the same pattern that has occurred in Africa potentially reoccurring in Afghanistan. 

Trade is also a major factor here. China is attempting to build up a new overland "silk road" and their overland trade route is threatened by instability in the region. If they can help prop up the Afghan government they can help keep that trade route safe. 

I do think that one of the goals for China here that isn't mentioned is that China's military just needs to fight once and awhile. China has not been involved in a major military conflict since their war with Vietnam in the late seventies early eighties. They have a large and powerful military but one that hasn't been tested in a very long time. They want to have a core of veterans who have at least seen combat. 

They will also get a chance to perfect their anti-insurgency tactics. China is always afraid of revolution and not just from their Uygur Muslim minority. Should things spiral out of control they want to have soldiers that know how to fight effectively in a counter insurgency. 

So how will things go for China? Probably about as good as it has gone for the United States. Years of conflict there have not lead to a US victory and I doubt a few Chinese troops will make much of a difference. What is needed is a large army that will fight and is willing to stay for the long haul. China isn't willing to do that but neither is any other country, America included. My guess is that they will accomplish very little in Afghanistan. 

President Trump's poll numbers remain steady despite Manafort and Cohen convictions.

President Donald Trump at a campaign rally. NBC News/AFP.

President Donald Trump's poll numbers have remained steady despite the perceived bad news from the Manafort and Cohen convictions. NBC News. The NBC/Wall Street Journal saw a drop in approval of two points, within the margin of error. His approval according to the survey was 46% between August 18-22 and dropped to 44% between August 22-25. 

Rasmussen has shown a steady rate of support for Trump for the last few months. That daily poll usually shows Trump's approval rate between 45% and 50%. The last polling data shows an approval rate of 46%.

My Comment:

Despite years of completely negative 24/7 coverage Trump's approval rate is steady or even increasing in most of the polls. I think any other president would have been taken down by such negative media coverage but Trump still stands. So why is this happening?

I think the obvious and odious bias with the press is a large part of it. My general reaction to negative stories about President Trump is an eye roll at best and complete apathy at worst. I think a lot of people have just tuned out negative news about Trump because it is very clear that the media only wants bad stories about Trump. They haven't even attempted to give President Trump a fair shot and that means nobody listens to their negative stories anymore. 

The bias evident in the Mueller investigation is also well known and obvious. After the release of the text messages between Peter Stzork and Lisa Page showed that they not only hated Donald Trump but his supporters as well, it made very little sense to listen to anything that came out of the Mueller probe. It's clear that even if a real crime is uncovered, and nobody expects one at this point, it will be fruit of the poisonous tree. 

Of course there is also the fact that Trump is doing a pretty good job. The economy is roaring and a lot of people are finding work. Everywhere you go you see help wanted signs and Trump deserves credit for his America first trade policies and the GOP tax cut for helping the economy out. 

Trump also gets credit for his foreign policy. Unlike his predecessors he hasn't gotten the US into any unnecessary or stupid wars. He seems to have given up our policy of regime change that caused so much suffering and destruction. And his efforts at diplomacy, though not always successful, is a lot better than what the media was portraying him as. 

More than anything else though Trump's enemies keep making him look good in comparison. The left has lost their mind and seem to have nothing to say other than hatred against Trump and his supporters. It's to the point where the only thing the left has is to ban people from participating in social media. The left is acting like the way Trump is being accused of and it is helping him out. 

In the wake of the latest mass shooting, here's my response to the world if I am ever a victim of one.

My handgun. Own work. 

1. I am opposed to gun control. Being killed in a mass shooting will not change that. Nothing will ever change that. I have opposed gun control before I had even graduated high school and I have never wavered in my support of the right to keep and bear arms. If I have anything resembling a core belief it is this: Self defense is the most basic and important human right and gun ownership is the best way to defend yourself from those that would wish you harm.

2. I absolutely refuse to have gun control advocates attempt to use my death as a talking point. I despise them and want nothing to do with them. I am proud to live in a country where guns are legal and common. I am disgusted that I live in a country where people can honestly advocate for disarmament with a straight face, though I do, of course, support their 1st amendment rights to do so. I consider most gun restrictions to be misguided at best and evil at worst.

3. If I die in a mass shooting my last thoughts are going to be "damn, wish I had my gun on me". I don't currently have a CCW permit and don't open carry but if I do die in a mass shooting the responsibly for that is on me and me alone for not getting a CCW permit. And if I do have a permit by the time this event occurs let it be known that I'd rather die fighting than live in a country that is disarmed.

4. I am also disgusted by CNN and refuse to have any of my work published on their site, though I understand that isn't legally binding. Anyone who knows me and speaks to CNN is doing so against my wishes and does not represent me. This contempt for the media extends beyond CNN but as of this writing they are the worst of the worst.

5. I have written about what I think can be done to stop mass shootings and what a real compromise on gun right/control would look like. If there is a discussion to be had, let it be those two posts or any of the posts where a good guy with a gun stopped a mass shooter.

6. I am also disgusted with the Democratic Party and do not support their attempts to pass laws restricting gun ownership. I have never voted for them in my life and would be horrified to be used as a talking point for them. I also do not wish my death to be used to support Republicans, third party or independent candidates who support gun control. However, I do approve of any gun rights supporter to use my story in favor of gun rights regardless of political affiliation.

7. Though I am not a member of the NRA or any other gun rights organization at the time of this post, I do support them. I have given a small amount of money to the NRA via Amazon Smile. If someone wants some good to come from my death, a donation to the NRA, the GOA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation or any other gun rights group is an acceptable alternative to a monetary donation to my family or other victims of this crime.

8. I also understand that dying in a mass shooting is extremely rare and not something that should be used as a discussion point on the wider issue of crime. I had a much better chance of dying in my car on the way to work or slipping in the shower than getting killed in a mass shooting. Mass shootings are rare and not the main type of violence in this country. Much more common is one criminal killing another criminal. I was at a very low risk of being killed in any kind of violence whatsoever and dying in a mass shooting is even more unusual.

9. If the attack I was killed in was politically motivated, let it be known that being killed in a mass shooting would not change my mind on the core issue. Death isn't a strong enough motivation for me to change my mind and we should resist those who would impose their views on others via the threat of violence, unless that violence is part of an armed conflict where the rules have already gone out the window.

Mass shooting at a Jacksonville video game event

Police respond to the scene of the attack. CBS News/AP.

A mass shooting at a Jacksonville Florida video game event has left two people dead and 11 people wounded. CBS News. The attacker has been identified as David Katz of Baltimore Maryland and he was reported to have killed himself after the shooting. The attack occurred at the GLHF game bar where a tournament for the video game, Madden 19, an NFL football game, was being held. The tournament was a qualifier for a main event in Las Vegas, Nevada. It is unclear what the motive for the shooting was but Katz was a participant in the tournament. Video of the shooting that recorded the audio of the event is widely available on the internet. 

Multiple people have been killed after a shooting at a video game tournament Sunday in Jacksonville, Florida. Here is what we know so far https://t.co/Y63aZrlbOY pic.twitter.com/QbBB4ORwfL

— CBS News (@CBSNews) August 26, 2018

My Comment:
Very strange story out of Florida as this does not seem like a typical mass shooting at all. Generally speaking mass shootings are pre-planned events done for either a political cause or because someone has become so disgruntled in life that they want to go out in infamy.

This does not seem to be that case at all. It seems that David Katz had no intention to shoot anyone today and only did so because he lost in the video game tournament. This was a spur of the moment kind of thing, as far as I can tell, which is extremely unusual for mass shootings. It happens sometimes but those cases usually aren't considered mass shootings as they almost never happen in public.

Though I have never bought into the idea that video games cause violence I do have to say that games and guns do not mix. People get really pissed off when the lose at video games and when money is on the line, like in this tournament, there is a small chance of violence. I have seen and heard people go completely nuts when they lose in video games. My gaming days are mostly behind me but it was always amazing to me to hear people yelling and screaming at me just because I won in an imaginary video game that I was playing for fun. It's a big reason I don't play much anymore and when I do it's single player for the most part.

I do have to say that I don't think this attack is a reflection of all gamers. Indeed, I don't think it is even a reflection of the Madden NFL fandom. I do think that there is a distinction to be made as Madden has a very different demographic for their fandom than most games but even for them this is a black swan event. Though if you were to tell me that a mass shooting was going to happen at a video game tournament and it was because someone got pissed at the outcome of a match, it would be a Madden tournament that I would have in mind. People do, very rarely, get killed because of a dispute over video games but I would say it would be much less common than disputes over money or relationships. 

I held off on writing about this event as it was very clear that there was some fake news floating around about the suspect. A different person, who I won't identify here, was falsely accused of committing this horrible crime. For the past few hours both that person, and the actual suspect, were being accused of the shooting when only Katz was responsible. I made sure to wait until more mainstream sources were reporting his name for before I mentioned him.

Inevitably the discussion will turn to gun control. And, as always, those discussions will be wrong. Since Katz lived in Maryland, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, there was little any new laws in Florida could do. It appears he was carrying illegally and was also in a gun free zone so new gun laws wouldn't have done a thing to stop him.

What could have stopped him was a good guy with a gun. It is amazing to me that there was no armed security for this kind of event. Though I doubt there were that many people at this event you would have seen either armed security or a police presence if this had been a traditional sporting event. But because it was e-sports there wasn't? Tempers run high at these kinds of thing and there really should be some kind of response ready for when something like this happens. Even if Katz didn't have a gun he could have injured or killed people before anyone could have stopped him even if he was completely unarmed, though he looks fairly weedy. And, of course, this was a gun free zone so nobody with good intentions was armed there.

There are rumors going around that Katz was well known in the Madden community and was disliked. I can't be sure those rumors are true or not but there are quite a bit of social media postings that indicate that he was at the very least an active participant in the community. My guess is that if the rumor is true than he should have been barred from these kinds of events a long time ago.

I am somewhat concerned about the cultural implications of someone getting so pissed off at a video game that he decides to shoot a bunch of people. I do understand that this tournament had a cash prize for the winner but even then it's not worth killing people over.

I think more than anything else people need to learn how to lose. Right now though there is very little acknowledgement that sometimes you just lose because your opponent is more skilled or worked harder. The 2016 election is a great example of that since half the country has been trying to overthrow an elected official just because he decided to campaign in the Midwest and his opponent didn't. To these people, it's impossible that Trump just did a better job than Clinton, so someone must have cheated and it's ok to throw a temper tantrum. That's just one example as the problem is throughout the culture but right now there is almost no push back to that narrative and as long as that is the case and we don't teach people how to lose gracefully, things like this will probably continue.

John McCain has stopped his treatment for cancer. Though tragic it begs the question. Why is he still in the Senate?

John McCain. Chicago Tribune/AP

I love my husband with all of my heart. God bless everyone who has cared for my husband along this journey. pic.twitter.com/v27sEbboii

— Cindy McCain (@cindymccain) August 24, 2018

As you are probably aware Senator John McCain has stopped his treatment for his brain cancer, indicating that he is likely to die soon. Though I have been a harsh critic of John McCain's recent actions, I wouldn't wish brain cancer on anyone. I hope that his suffering is at a minimum and that he spends the rest of his life with his family.

That being said, I don't know if I agree with the fact that McCain is still in the senate. It is very clear that McCain is no longer in any condition to serve as a senator. Indeed, he hasn't been in quite some time. McCain hasn't been in congress since last December but he is still the senator from Arizona. In that time he has missed several very important votes.

I think that McCain is doing this out of spite as well. The Donald Trump/John McCain feud is obvious and still ongoing and I think McCain realized that if he did retire he would have been replaced by someone who would be more pro-Trump. I can't think of any other reason for him to not retire.

All that being said I think there should be some kind of measure to keep our politicians from doing this. The President has the 25th amendment if he is not capable of fulfilling his duty to medical reasons, but as far as I am aware that is not the case for members of the Senate.

I think that is a bad thing and not just because of partisan political concerns. I would obviously love if McCain was replaced by a pro-Trump republican until the election in 2020, but even if that wasn't the case, I do think the people of Arizona deserve to have two senators. Of course Arizona's other Senator, Jeff Flake, is a lame duck senator but at least he is doing things. Only having one Senator though means that Arizona has less of a say in national politics than any other state.

I do think that whatever happens with John McCain, we should take more steps to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. Whatever you think of McCain, I do think that it's too much to ask that if a senator is dying he or she shouldn't be allowed to fulfill the rest of their term...

President Trump weighs in on the South African land seizure plan

South Africa. AFP. 

President Donald Trump has ordered Secretary of State Mike Pompano to investigate the plan in South Africa to seize farms owned by whites. AFP.  South Africa is attempting to take farms from whites, who own 72% of the farms despite being 8% of the population. Those plans do not involve compensating the farmers for their land. South Africa rejected the claims. 

Some confiscations have already begun. RT reports that a game farm company,  Akkerland Boerdery, has been offered $1.87 million for land that they claim is worth $18.7 million. Economists fear that the confiscations could lead to an economic collapse as farmers could refuse to invest or improve land that they fear could be taken from them. The violence Trump talked about is happening though it is unclear at what rate it is happening at. Farm murders are a small fraction of South Africa's huge crime problem but appear to be racial motivated unlike most crime there. 

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2018

My Comment:
I have to say it was hard to find a good source for this story. The AFP report was bare bones and the RT one has the usual RT caveats. More mainstream media though has gone absolutely insane over this story to the point where they deny that anything bad is happening in South Africa at all. Indeed, they are too busy calling Trump a racist to even give the most basic information about what is happening. I hope to correct that a bit with this post, even though I understand the risk of commenting on such a racially charged issue.

First some context. It is very important to note that there are two major groups of white people in South Africa. There is the English speaking group that is generally in favor of this farm confiscation scheme and the Afrikaans speaking Dutch whites that are being targeted by these programs. The media is painting this as a white vs black issue when really there is an element of inter-white racism going on here as well.

It is also true that the Black people that these lands will be given to don't have much of a claim. The Dutch people that settled these farms were improving land that wasn't settled by anyone. The Xulu majority in South Africa never lived on these farms and have little claim to taking them. Leftists would argue that doesn't matter due to South Africa's recent and horrible history with Apartheid, but they often leave this critical context out of the argument.

One is immediately reminded of the example of Rhodesia. Rhodesia was a UK colony that declared independence and got called racist. They were eventually overthrown by Robert Mugabee and his ZANU rebels. The new Zimbabwe did well for awhile as Africa's breadbasket but then Mugabee brought land reform that is extremely similar to what is going to happen in South Africa.

Zimbabwe went to Africa's breadbasket into a country dependent on food aid because they took land from white farmers and gave it to black ones who didn't have the expertise or experience to run farms. That's a scheme that would fail no matter who was involved racially, you need farmers to farm and you can't replace them with people off of the street.This utterly destroyed the economy of Zimbabwe to the point where they made Venezuela's inflation problem look quaint. It was an utter disaster and it looks like history is repeating itself.

As for the claims of violence, I know that they are true, though the motivation is unclear. Very few people can argue with a straight face that white farmers haven't been killed in several horrible attacks, though a few people on Twitter are trying. Wikipedia has a decent article up about the attacks that is, for now, fairly even handed, so if you want more background that's a good place to start. Given the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and has a leftist bias, it's very likely that the article will be updated in the wake of Trump's tweet to be garbage.

The real question is whether these attacks are racially motivated or just part and parcel for South Africa's incredibly bad murder and crime problem. Murder in South Africa is so bad that it is very possible that the murders are just typical of the insane violence they have there. It is also very possible that the attacks are racially motivated. Does motivation really matter though when people want to kill you and take your stuff? Either way you are dead, and it doesn't matter if it's racism, greed or simple psychotic violence. It should be noted that blacks make up about 1/3 of the people killed in these attacks, though that doesn't necessarily rule out racism as a motive.

Regardless it's very clear that both the land confiscation scheme and the response to these murders is racially motivated. South Africa is very obviously targeting one racial minority to enhance the wealth of their racial majority. And they aren't doing enough to protect these farmers from violence and murders. I would say that this situation is very close to genocide. Taking people's land without fair compensation is always a bad thing, (and I'm not a fan of doing it WITH fair compensation) but doing it based on race is, well, racism. Obviously. The fact that Apartheid happened is not an excuse to do the same thing that happened to blacks to whites.

As far as President Trump goes though, I think this probably works out for him. The media freakout is going to be hugely damaging to the Democrats and media in general. This week they have already defended the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts, and now they are pretending that what by all accounts would be called a genocide if it wasn't happening to white people, isn't a thing. This is confirming something that people already believe, that the media and the Democratic party hate white people. That hurts them in the 2018 elections and will further erode trust in the media.

Mexico opened 2,599 homicide investigations last month, the worst number in Mexican history.

A Mexican police officer stands near the body of an auxiliary cop who was killed. Los Angeles Times. 

Mexico has opened 2,599 homicide investigations in July which is the most since record keeping began in Mexico. LA Times. The number of investigations does not equal the number of deaths because many of the cases had multiple victims. Violence has increased dramatically in Mexico due to the war on drugs and the cartels. The war has succeeded in weakening the cartels but has also caused the splintered factions to fight against each other in order to regain power. 31,174 people died last year with many of those cases due to the drug war. This year looks to be even more violent with 16,399 homicide investigations in the first seven months of the year, with many of those cases involving multiple victims. Incoming Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (Almo) has said that his government will change strategies in the drug war by offering amnesty to low level cartel members and drug growers. 

My Comment:

Once again, the drug war in Mexico is getting much worse. If you count all the murders in Mexico as  deaths in the drug war (which is probably too high because there are of course non-drug related murders) the Mexican Drug War is outpacing every other war besides Syria. Absolutely brutal wars like Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen have all had fewer deaths than the Mexican Drug War this year if the figures cited in the LA Times report and by Wikipedia are accurate. 

Amazingly, considering how brutal the violence is, how over the top the cartels are and how many people are dying, the Mexican Drug War gets zero coverage most of the time. Though pieces like the LA Times report do exist the media talking heads and pundits ignore the story and even the politicians ignore the story. 

I can see why the Democrats in America ignore the story as it is harmful to their open borders and free immigration model, but I never understand why Republicans don't use the war as a campaign issue. I am guessing Trump's wall would get more support if people realized that the wall could also protect us from the violence in Mexico. 

It also should influence the immigration debate. As much noise that is being made about the Mollie Tibbetts case, way worse has happened in the Mexican Drug War. Any war where things like this happen is one that should be paid close attention too. The cartels are capable of horrific violence and we have an obvious interest in not bringing people that are capable of forcing people to fight to the death into this country.  

Of course the concerns the United States have over Mexico are nothing compared to Mexicans themselves. With new president Almo coming into power it's clear that the strategy is going to change. I am not impressed with Almo's amnesty plan. I doubt many will take him up on his offer due to the fear of the cartels that is universal in Mexico. 

Then again, I do agree that the recent response to the war has increased the violence. Taking out the Cartel leaders has resulted in power struggles which has resulted in quite a few deaths. If there was only one big cartel with no other competitors violence would decrease but that cartel would have an immense amount of power. It would lead to even more corruption and would essentially stop any efforts by the United States to stop the drug trade. 

I also think that the violence is due in part to the cartels trying to move beyond just drugs. They are now moving into ISIS style ways of making money that worked so well for them in Syria. Like ISIS they have begun to kidnap random people for ransom and are taking over the oil industry. This is why I don't buy Almo's plan because even more people are falling under the influence of the cartels. 

It's not like I have any answers for the drug war either. It's going to be up to Mexico to fix and I don't have any solutions for this problem. I think things will calm down once one of the cartels gets big enough to stamp out all of the others but that will be a bloody process and won't be the end of the violence. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better... 

Illegal alien confesses to the murder of the missing Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts

Mollie Tibbetts. Police handout. 

An illegal alien has confessed to the murder of a missing Iowa student named Mollie Tibbetts. AP. Cristhian Bahena Rivera, a 24 year old from Mexico has been charged with 1st degree murder in the case. Rivera confessed to the murder and had led police to the location of Tibbetts body, who he dumped in a corn field. Rivera said that he got out of his car and started to run with Tibbetts who was disturbed enough that she threatened to call the police. Rivera said that he blacked out and when he came too Tibbetts was dead. Tibbetts' disappearance launched a massive manhunt and gained worldwide media attention. 

My Comment:

I confess to not following this story closely when it was happening. I kinda had the feeling that it was just a pretty white girl deciding to disappear for awhile and then getting spooked by the national media coverage, which was pretty disproportionate. It turns out I was wrong and that there was a real and disgusting case here. It is a tragedy that Tibbetts was murdered. 

The case reminds me of one that I read about in a book about FBI profiling where another man attacked and murdered a woman that was out jogging. In that case he too got out of his car and started to jog with her but when she rejected his advances he killed her. In that this is far from an unprecedented case. The murder of Suzanne Collins, as detailed in the book Journey into Darkness by John Douglas is eerily similar.

My guess is that Rivera acted in a similar way. He saw a pretty young woman who he knew he had no chance with and tried to proposition her. She quite rightly declined him, sensing the danger and that set him off. He was pissed that someone like her wouldn't go for someone like him and he killed her for it. It's not much of a mystery why he did what he did. Let's hope that it was only a murder though...

It's fairly unusual for someone like Tibbetts to be murdered. She is what as known as a low risk victim as she wasn't involved in crime in any way and she lived in a safe area. The fact that she was murdered is newsworthy in its own as things like this rarely happen, despite the media claiming it happens all the time. The vast majority of murders in this country is one criminal murdering another with people not involved with the criminal life mostly safe from this kind of violence. Not so in this case. 

There are going to be some major political implications for this case. I doubt that is what the family wants but it's going to happen regardless because this case now involves one of the great hot button issues of the day, illegal immigration. It's inarguable that if Cristhian Rivera had been deported Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive and unknown today. Given that immigration is probably the most important national and global issues around today there was no way that this case disappears even if that's what the media would like. 

Of course the media has some responsibility for turning this into a major story in the first place and one that will likely impact the 2018 midterms. Outside of bashing President Trump, the Mollie Tibbetts story was THE top story for several weeks. Though I disagree with most leftist talking points on the media I do have to say there is a real phenomenon of "missing white girl" stories where the media cover cases where a pretty young white girl goes missing far outside the actual importance of the case. It's obviously very important to the people that loved and missed Tibbetts but as a national news story? The coverage was probably over the top. Given how in favor the media is when it comes to illegal immigration it ended up biting them back hard. 

Now the media is going to be forced to cover the fact that an illegal alien confessed to the murder of a woman who they turned into a media star. The media narrative is and has always been that illegal aliens are just normal people that don't contribute much to America's crime problem and to be opposed to them is just racism. This case shatters that narrative because it was very clear that Rivera should have never been in this country. 

This will likely become a rallying cry for the Republicans in November. The story was too large and the crime so evil that it will effect people that believe that illegal immigration is a clear and present danger to the safety of US citizens. Such a thing feels slightly distasteful, but given the circumstances of the case it was impossible for it not to end up that way. 

Still, when it comes down to it this story is not about the political implications of a murder. It's about a young woman who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up cornered by a monster. That's the real story here and I am glad that Cristhian Rivera will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars for what he did. 

Man attempting to stab police officers shot and killed in Spain during an apparent terror attack.

Spanish police stand outside the suspects apartment. BBC/EPA.

A man attempting to stab a police officer in Spain in an apparent terror attack was shot and killed. BBC. The man, a 29 year old Algerian man named Abdelouahab Taib approached the police station and demanded to be let in. He then pulled out a knife and attempted to stab a female police officer who shot him dead. The attack occurred in the Barcelona area that suffered a terror attack last year that killed 16 people, though it is unclear if this attack was related to that incident. It is unclear if the suspect had any links to wider terror organizations. 

My Comment:

This attack isn't getting much press coverage in the United States. It was a minor attack but you would think that there would be some coverage for yet another terror attack. Part of it might be because it was such an obvious failure as well. As they always say "if it bleeds it leads" and since nobody died in this case besides the attacker it's not going to be good clickbait. It's a sad state of affairs but not to be unexpected. 

I think failed terror attacks should get a lot of coverage. It serves to demoralize potential attackers and make police and security forces look good in comparison. I also think we should mock these attackers for being stupid. I think that mockery in general is an effective way to counter terror attacks and we should mock attacks when they fail spectacularly like this. 

It's very clear that this attacker was incredibly stupid. Bringing a knife to a gunfight is always a bad idea. Walking into a police station with a bunch of armed cops and then trying to stab someone? What did he expect to happen? The best case scenario is you stab someone before you get shot down but even that is extremely unlikely. It's possible he was trying to steal a gun after he stabbed the original policewoman but that's an even dumber plan for reasons I have explained before. In short, expecting to steal someone's weapon and then use it yourself without being familiar with the weapon isn't going to work. 

And making a scene before you strike? Stupid as well. The cop knew something was up and was probably prepared for violence. When the man attacked she was able to put him down quickly. Thank God again for stupid terrorists. 

It's not like it is that hard to kill a bunch of people with knives. You just need to make sure that you do so in a place where nobody else is armed. Given the state of the EU gun laws you could find many places without armed opponents and CCW exists but is extremely rare you could find a lot of easy places to attack. There would have been plenty of targets but this idiot attacked the one place where he knew that someone would be able to shoot him. 

As always I don't think there are going to be any connections to other terror attacks. Even ISIS or al-Qaeda would have told this guy to get a better plan. My guess is that he was inspired by them but had no actual connections. It is also possible that he was mentally ill or something, but that doesn't excuse what he did. 

The Venezuela crisis is getting worse as more nations tighten their border controls.

Brazilian police look on as a Venezuela migrant camp burns. BBC/EPA.

The Venezuela crisis is getting worse as more nations are tightening their border controls to deal with the stream of refugees. BBC. Ecuador has issued new rules saying that people need a passport to cross into their country on their way to Peru or Chile. The migrants have been traveling through Columbia but are now being turned away at the border with Ecuador if they don't have a passport. Passports are hard to come by in Venezuela due to government dysfunction. 4000 people a day have been arriving at the border with Ecuador. Columbia is outraged by the move as it means many Venezuelans are now stranded in Columbia. 

In Brazil several migrant camps were attacked by outraged Brazilians. The attack follows a robbery that was allegedly committed by a Venezuelan migrant. Soldiers have been deployed to the area while many Venezuelans returned home but set fires to cars before they left. 

My Comment:

It is surprising that it has taken so long for the other governments to react to this crisis. Thousands of Venezuelans have already fled and are now becoming a major burden on local governments who are already dysfunctional. Given the circumstances I would have thought that they would have done this already. 

I am not at all surprised that there is retaliation against these migrants. As much as people hate to admit it when your country is invaded by a horde of desperate and hungry people, some of them already criminals, they are going to commit crimes. And when that happens people aren't going to put up with that. The attack on the Brazilian camps were entirely predictable. 

I do wonder where many of these refugees will end up. A lot of them are stuck in Columbia but I doubt that is a long term solution. And many of the sounding countries are in bad shape themselves. The economic situation in Central America, for example, is better but there is so much violence due to the drug trade that the refugees could hardly stay there. 

The obvious choice are the richer southern countries in South America, like Brazil, Chile and Argentina. None of them are likely to want these refugees either and their richness and strong economies might not last if they have to care for a horde of Venezuelans. 

Europe and North America would be possible destinations as well but there is zero political will in America to take in more refugees from ANY source. And Europe has already been overrun by economic and military refugees from Africa and the Middle East. They don't have room for the people they have now, let alone more refugees from Venezuela. Only Canada seems dumb enough to take in a large number of people but I haven't even heard anything from them doing so. 

Of course there is always the option that we failed to use for the Syrian and Iraqi refugees which is to house the refugees in local countries like Columbia. Doing so would save millions of dollars and would spare the refugees a huge journey so I doubt it will happen. I have no faith in the world's governments to do the smart thing so it's really more of a question as to who gets screwed over the most. 

None of this would be happening though if Venezuela hadn't elected a socialist government who decided that instead of investing into their oil industry they would let it rot and give that money to their poorest residents instead. Doing so ruined the entire country to the point where people are starving to death. Indeed, that is a strong argument for nobody taking in Venezuelans after they willingly elected such an incompetent government for fear that they will do so again in their new countries. 

And things might get worse before they get better. I have been saying for awhile that one of the only advantages Venezuela has is their large military. They might think that a war is the best way out of their economic crisis by raiding territory that is disputed between them and Guyana, which has very little military power. Such an act would be pure desperation but what other choice does Venezuela have? Nobody will help them due to the situation being entirely their fault and their only answer to the socialist polices that ruined their country is to enforce more socialism. There is a real chance of war and an even wore refugee crisis. 

A warning about Wikipedia.

I was reading an online discussion about Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, and a person involved tried to explain what Paddock's motive was. Having read the final report I was interested because the police drew no conclusions as to why Paddock did what he did, with only hints of motive, none of which was conclusive. But according to this person there was proof of why he did what he did.

He cited Wikipedia and the Stephen Paddock article which claimed that Paddock was a right wing extremist and that the Las Vegas police investigation said that he believed in FEMA camps and that people should arm themselves. The full quote can bee found below:

After finding the cite note I discovered that the primary source did say that someone claimed that Paddock was a right wing extremist but the Wikipedia entry left out much of the context. Instead of being an official finding of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department investigation the New York Magazine made it clear that it was just one witness statement out of the more than 1000 statements collected during the investigation.

Further more it is very clear that the witness isn't reliable. The man was a jailhouse informant that had been pinched on a possession charge and stated that he was desperate for money. He supposedly contacted Paddock who wanted help converting his AR's to fully automatic firearms and that Paddock had confided with him about the government.

There is a reason why people don't find jailhouse informants to be reliable and this is a pretty good example. It was pretty clear that he is full of it because Paddock's plan never involved fully automatic weapons. He was rich enough that he could have bought some and he would have passed the extreme vetting involved. Furthermore Paddock already had his bumpstocks to simulate fully automatic fire in the first place, so why would he need to further modify the weapons? It doesn't make any sense and calls into question everything else the witness said.

Of course there is also the fact that the police report mentioned none of this. You would think that if the police though this witness was reliable they would have included that into the final police report and said that there was a clear and convincing motive. The report says nothing of the sort and I know this because I read the entire thing (excluding the autopsy information).

It's very clear that this "witness" was probably just making things up. The police investigated, found him not credible and did not include his statement in the final report. It was clear that he was a jailhouse snitch trying to catch a break on his case and probably never even met Stephen Paddock, let alone had a conversation to him about his beliefs.

What little we know of Paddock's political beliefs and motivations do not suggest he is a conspiracy theorist or that he did the attack in favor of gun control. The people that knew him best, his girlfriend and brother, said he was largely apolitical but did express some support of Trump's actions on illegal immigrants and was not a fan of Obama. There was nothing in there about him ranting about FEMA or trying to get people to buy weapons to oppose gun control. Indeed, Paddock's friends and family seem just as confused as anyone else as to why Paddock did what he did.

I thought the original New York Magazine article to be irresponsible at best as it was clear that this wasn't a fruitful line of investigation for the police, but what the Wikipedia article did was much worse. Not only did they strip away all of the context of the witness statement they also said that it was some kind of official police finding. Furthermore the AP article that was cited by the New York Magazine said the Clark County Chairman hadn't even heard of the account and didn't know if it was credible.

It's very clear to me that this is a good example why you cannot trust Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is two layers removed from the primary source, a witness statement that I haven't been able to find and am not sure exists, stripped away much of the context that sheds doubt on the statement and further lied saying that the motive was a finding of the Las Vegas Police Department's investigation (as an aside, it's not the Las Vegas Police Department, it's the Las Vegas METRO Police Department, but that's a common and forgivable mistake, unlike the rest of this).

The worst thing is that I can't go into Wikipedia and correct this. For one thing there is the stupid reliance on secondary sources that would strip out the primary evidence for this being fake news, which is the final police report. The same thing could be said for my blog pointing this out as I am not notable enough to be a "reliable source". There isn't much I can do to fix this myself.

It's also obvious that this is another good example of left wing bias on Wikipedia. That bias is well known and there have been some truly epic edit wars on Wikipedia. The page on Gamergate is probably the most well known example, with the Wikipedia page having little resemblance to reality, but it is far from the only one.

I am guessing that this edit is allowed to stand because it makes the opponents of leftism look bad. Not only are they trying to paint all conspiracy theorist as being the same as Stephen Paddock, it also makes right wingers and gun rights advocates look bad as well. I also think it is telling that a similar fringe theory, though one that has much more evidence than this one, is correctly called out as not being official and largely dismissed by experts. I am of course talking about the fact that ISIS took credit for the Las Vegas attack. If Wikipedia was being remotely fair they would have given the same disclaimers for this accusation or left it out entirely.

I think this is a good example of why you shouldn't just blindly trust Wikipedia. I know people have been saying this for years but it really is true. Wikipedia is a good resource if you are looking up something that is not political in nature but there are bad actors on the site that make sure that you won't get a full picture. Always remember to check primary sources and do not treat Wikipedia like it is going to be a end all be all for internet arguments.

Russia claims air defenses have shot down 45 drones targeting their airbase in Syria.

Russia's Hmeymim airbase in Syria. TASS.

Russia claims that their airbase in Syria has come under sustained drone attack and their air defenses have shot down 45 drones. TASS. Journalists were allowed to look at the drones during a tour of the Hmeymim airbase in Syria. The drones are improvised but the Russians claim that they are also high tech long range drones with the capacity to drop 10 explosives each. The drones have all been launched from Idlib province, which is one of the last areas under rebel and terrorist control. Russia also claims that the drones were all following a template that was probably designed by a foreign power. 

A photo of one of the captured drones. TASS

My Comment:

A note on the source, TASS is a Russian news agency. That should have been obvious from the tone of the news article, a key tell would be swapping "terrorists" for "rebels". Though I rarely link to Russian news sources the western sources for this news story were pretty obviously cribbed from this report so I figured I would go right to the source. I don't know if such a disclaimer is necessary, after all the BBC is funded by the British government and I never warn there, but whatever. 

The drones themselves are fairly impressive. Sure they look kind of ramshackle and improvised but if the capabilities of the drones are correct in the TASS report than that is very impressive. It means the rebels or al-Nusra, whoever is launching these drones don't really even have to get close to the airbase to attack the Russians there. They are also able to launch multiple explosives at once and if I am correct about the size it looks like they are the size of hand grenades. 

These drones could do a quite a bit of damage. If one of these were to get through the Russian defenses they could easily damage an airplane or kill a solider on the ground. The explosives don't look that powerful but we have seen from ISIS that grenades or explosives dropped from drones can and have killed people in the past. 

The question is why Russia has been so successful in shooting them down. Of course we only have the Russian's word on that and it is possible that a few drones have made it through their defenses and haven't been published. That is certainly possible. 

But assuming the Russian aren't lying why aren't these drones working? I think there size is a large part of it. These are not small drones. Their wingspan is almost 12 feet and I am guessing they are showing up on radar. This allows the Russians to shoot them down with missiles or AA guns. 

Even that though is a win for the rebels as the cost of these drones is probably pretty low. I can't imagine that these drones cost more than $1000 even including labor costs, fuel and explosives. The missiles used to shoot them down cost way more than that and even anti-air cannons are not cheap. Plus they do not put their soldiers at risk and have the possible upside of a successful strike. 

Still, it's not like these drones are going to win the war for the rebels. At worst they are making the war much more costly for the Russians and at best they might knock out a few airmen or jets. That won't change the fact that the rebels have essentially lost the war.

As ISIS fades the UN warns of a greater threat from al-Qaeda.

Hamza Bin Laden. CIA Photo

The UN is warning that as ISIS fades al-Qaeda could return under new leadership to be the biggest terror threat. Fox News. With Osama Bin Laden's son, Hamza Bin Laden, now in charge, the terror group has been invigorated. Already al-Qaeda is stronger than ISIS in Yemen, Somalia and South Asia and is now making inroads into Iran. ISIS members have also begun to defect to al-Qaeda as the terror group's fortunes have been reversed. 

My Comment:

Most news articles are focusing on the other major find of this report. It says that ISIS still has 20,000 to 30,000 fighters in Syria and Iraq. I don't know how true those numbers are but I do know that ISIS has no claim to be a state anymore. They are still a major terror network and hold some territory but the number of fighters they have is still pretty small compared to what it used to be. 

I find the al-Qaeda findings to be much more interesting. Of course, if you have been paying attention, al-Qaeda never really went away. Al-Nusra is/was their major affiliate in Syria and is one of the last remaining groups there besides the government and the Kurds that control territory. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is a powerful group that has conducted some international terror attacks. And the African affiliate, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is also very dangerous and one of the more active terror groups in the world right now. 

Still, with ISIS on the decline there is going to be a vacuum in terms of Islamic terrorism. ISIS has almost completely stopped launching major attacks and they can only pull off attacks by lone wolves that are inspired by the organization and not trained and paid by them. Al-Qaeda has also been greatly reduced but they have had less international attention focused on them, giving them room to breath. 

I do think that the recruitment of former ISIS fighters is going to be a major issue. Many of those fighters have likely escaped from Iraq and Syria and will need a new place to live. They won't be welcome at home and have few other options. Joining another terror group is the perfect solution with them and they will bring the skills and experience that they have learned on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. That will greatly increase the capabilities of al-Qaeda and other groups. 

As for Hamza Bin Laden I don't know how well he will do as a leader. He certainly has the name recognition and his marriage to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta's daughter will give him a bit of credibility. But unlike his father he doesn't have the experience Osama had. Remember, Osama Bin Laden got his experience during the war in Afghanistan against the Russians back in the day. Hamza doesn't have anything like that. Time will tell what kind of leader he will be. 

We should also remember that al-Qaeda, especially AQAP, has launched several attacks. Most famously AQAP was responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shooting and I think they could very well do something like that again. 

The problem with al-Qaeda is that they tend to focus on spectacular attacks that are overly complex and easy to disrupt. One of the reasons the Charlie Hebdo attacks worked is because it was relatively simple to pull off. Time will tell if they have learned from ISIS, who tends to focus on much simpler gun and ramming attacks over massive bombings or hijackings. Given the butchers bill that ISIS has accumulated over the years it's easy to say which strategy is more effective. 

Finally, I do have to say that the danger from al-Qaeda is mediated by their focus on holding the territory they have. It's to the point where al-Nusra ended up changing their name and dropping out of al-Qaeda so they could better focus on the fight against the Syrian regime. Similar things have happened in Yemen as well as the focus seems to be on fighting the Houthi rebels and the Saudi alliance and not sending out major attacks. If that holds than the threat from al-Qaeda may remain minimal. 

Yet another car ramming attack in the UK.

A forensic team examines the car used in the attack. Reuters. 

In yet another terror incident in the UK a 29 year old man has been arrested after ramming his car into a group of pedestrians near the UK parliament in London. Reuters. Three people were wounded in the attack but nobody was killed. It was the 2nd attack targeting Parliament in less than two years. The suspect was a British citizen but was from overseas and was known to police but not to intelligence services. No other suspects are likely to be involved and no links to a wider terror cell. 

The Sun, a British tabloid, has identified the suspect as Salih Khater, a Sudanese immigrant.

My Comment:

I'm a little late on this story but I wanted to cover the New Mexico compound case as that appears to be an ongoing situation while this one was obviously resolved early this morning. Plus this attack was a failure and thankfully nobody died. I did want to mention it briefly though. 

It seems pretty clear that this attack was a total failure. The suspect did not kill anyone and only managed to injure three people. He crashed his car into a anti-crash barricade and was arrested immediately. All and all this went about as good as one of these attacks can go. 

Once again I am thankful for stupid terrorists. It's very clear that the attackers plan was not going to work under the best of circumstances. First of all his choice of vehicle was a bad one. It was a Ford Fiesta, which I believe is a compact car without a lot of weight behind it. He was going fast enough to injure people but if he had chosen a heavier vehicle he might have actually managed to kill someone. Remember, the Nice attack that killed so many involved a full size cargo truck. Using a tiny compact car is not the way to pull off one of these attacks. I know that Europe's car culture is vastly different than the United States but even a small pickup truck or medium sized sedan could have done more damage. 

And his choice of target was foolish as well. Attacking Parliament is one of the dumbest ideas you can have because there probably isn't anywhere else in London or even the UK that's more well guarded. This attack was stopped in seconds because he attacked a place with such high security. Sure there is the emotional and symbolic impact of attacking the seat of British government but that's more than balanced by the fact that he failed utterly to kill anyone. Indeed, I kind of view this guy as a laughing stock. 

I don't think there will be any links to a wider terror networks. This attack screams lone wolf to me. He was likely inspired by terror groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda, but I doubt he got any funding or instruction from them. For one their ability to do so has been greatly disrupted as their strongholds in Iraq and Syria have been reduced to mere shadows of their former selves. And if they had done so I think they would have come up with a better plan...