Anonymous at War As the CIA goes begging tech titans for help, the hacker collective goes on offense. : Kevin Williamson

When the hacker group Anonymous announced it was launching a campaign against the Islamic State (“These are not the 72 virgins they were expecting,” as one now immortal online quipster put it), something happened that was, in its way, remarkable: Most everybody took them seriously.

Anonymous has taken credit for eliminating some 3,800 pro-ISIS social-media accounts, and it has suggested that, as in its campaign against the rather less significant Ku Klux Klan, it will gather a great deal of real-world information on Islamic State sympathizers and confederates and make it public. In the case of the Klan, that would mean mainly exposure to social opprobrium; in the case of Islamic State groupies and co-conspirators, that could mean a great deal more.

Anonymous is a famously fractious coalition of individuals and factions with internal rivalries and disagreements — a collective front rather than a united front, as Jamie Condliffe put it in Gizmodo — but it is generally regarded as being reasonably good at what it does. Terrorist groups are critically dependent upon electronic communication for everything from recruitment and motivation to actual operations, and there is some reason to suspect that groups such as Anonymous will prove more adept at disrupting that communication than our conventional intelligence and law-enforcement forces have. The Islamic State isn’t really a state, yet; like al-Qaeda, it is a non-state actor, and it is likely that other non-state actors will be enormously important in countering it.

John Kerry: Charlie Hebdo Shooting is ‘Different’ from Paris Attacks By Joel Gehrke

Secretary of State John Kerry believes that the terrorist attacks in Paris last week are a more demonstrable assault on Western society than the massacre of Charlie Hebdo writers that took place in January.

Kerry made the distinction while addressing U.S. embassy staff in Paris Tuesday. “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” he said. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘Okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”

Kerry’s comments reflect the discomfort with Charlie Hebdo​’s satirizing of Islam that led left-leaning writers to criticize the magazine after two men affiliated with al-Qaeda murdered most of its editorial team. But they are at odds with his remarks in the immediate aftermath of that attack.

JEBBERISH ON IMMIGRATION: DON’T BAN MUSLIM REFUGEES BY TIM ALBERTA

Florence, S.C. — Jeb Bush today refused to support an outright ban on Muslim refugees from Syria entering the United States, arguing that screening protocols must be examined before any decisions are made. He reiterated, however, that Christians should be welcomed without wait.

“At a minimum we ought to be bringing in people like orphans and people that clearly aren’t going to be terrorists. Or Christians — there are no Christian terrorists in the Middle East,” Bush said. “They’re persecuted religious minorities.”

Asked how the government could determine the authenticity of someone’s faith, Bush replied, “Well, [if] you’re a Christian, you can prove you’re a Christian.”

A reporter interrupted, “How?”

Bush paused, gave a slight shrug, and said, “I think you can prove it. If you can’t prove it, then you err on the side of caution.”

John Kerry Is a Disgrace :Charles Cooke

Ladies and gentleman, your Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry:

In the last days, obviously, that has been particularly put to the test. There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate.

Obama Still Convinced of His ISIS Strategy: Events? What Events? Jonah Goldberg

According to legend, if not actual historians, Harold Macmillan was once asked what he most feared could derail his agenda. The British prime minister allegedly said, “Events, my dear boy, events.”

Macmillan may never have actually said it, but the quote endures because it gets at a fundamental truth of politics (and life). Facts on the ground can deliver a fatal blow to one’s most cherished plans.

The line kept coming to mind as I listened to President Obama’s remarkable news conference Monday from the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Asked again and again whether he underestimated the threat from Islamic State, a group he once dismissed as a “JV team,” the president said, in effect, “no.”

Of course, he used a lot more words, but that was the gist: “It’s important for us to get the strategy right, and the strategy that we are pursuing is the right one.” He added that “the terrible events in Paris were obviously a terrible and sickening setback.”

Critics who disagree, he said, shouldn’t “pop off” with their half-baked and ill-considered opinions. He’s “not interested” in what he sees as mere sloganeering about “American leadership or America winning” that distract him from his strategy.

Exceptional Measures Against Jihad The real way to defeat the Jihadis. Kenneth R. Timmerman

As I listened to French president Francois Hollande over the weekend, I was struck by the familiarity of the ritual phrases he used to signal the French response to the well-orchestrated terror attacks that swept through my old neighborhood in Paris on Friday the 13th like a moveable feast of impotence and death.

“France will be merciless toward the Daesh barbarians,” the president declaimed, referring to the Islamic State by its Arabic-language sobriquet. “France will act with all the legal means at its disposal.”

As I recall, that’s the same thing Hollande said in January after another group of jihadi Muslim terrorists assaulted the editorial offices of the satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, murdering journalists, cartoonists, and a security guard.

And it was the same language he used a few days later when yet another group of jihadi Muslims hit a kosher supermarket in Paris.

Ten months later, what “merciless” steps have the French government taken against Daesh. Have they done anything to staunch the flow of young French Muslims traveling to Syria who plan to continue their jihad against the “infidel” West after they return to Europe?

WAR ON PARIS: NIDRA POLLER

It is like the death of a loved one. The death of our city that we love despite its failings, misdeeds, and particular misbehavior that I have been chronicling over the past fifteen years. A city is more than its current events. And today the heart of our city is broken. We do not have the fibre of Israelis who live with miraculous vitality in a permanent state of war & peace, but Parisians are not entirely devoid of courage and sharp instincts in the face of utmost danger. Anecdotes and eyewitness testimony are slowly emerging. The hard facts are at a minimum.

A soft spoken young man in an elegant overcoat describes the scene at the café on Rue de Charonne. He was present, he saw people picked off like sitting ducks. “They didn’t have a chance.” And yet he himself cannot believe what he saw. The Public Prosecutor delivers official information in an appropriately neutral tone. A hundred shell casings are left at each of the cafés attacked. No one was spared. Those who are not dead are in desperate condition.

96% of Syrian Refugees Admitted by Obama are Muslim, Only 1 Yazidi 1 Yazidi. 53 Christians. 2,184 Muslims. Daniel Greenfield

While Christians and Yazidis are the two groups most persecuted in this Muslim religious war, they are also the least likely to be admitted as refugees by Obama.

Here are the truly shameful numbers, from Patrick Goodenough.

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday.

The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists.

1 Yazidi. 53 Christians. 2,184 Muslims.

Imagine if during the Holocaust, the US had focused on taking in “moderate Nazis” while leaving the Jews to die. That is what Obama’s Muslims First refugee policy looks like. And it’s outrageous.

GIL TROY: AN OPEN LETTER TO MY LIBERAL AMERICAN FRIENDS…WHY THE OUTRAGE GAP?

I know we Israelis are supposed to endure whatever we suffer in guilty silence. Apparently, we deserve the violence in our streets and against our kids because of “the occupation,” which justifies any Palestinian crime, no matter how tangential, evil, counterproductive, or aimed at destroying us rather than at solving our problems. I know that after years of Israelis negating the exile (shlilat hagolah), we now have shlilat zion, negating Zion, with many American Jewish liberals bashing Israel while resenting the slightest Zionist critique offered the supposedly perfect, thriving, untouchable, American Jewish community.

And yes, I know that Benjamin Netanyahu stumbled when blaming the Palestinian hero, the pro-Hitler Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, for Hitler’s Final Solution, and shouldn’t have appointed the undiplomatic Ran Baratz to head public diplomacy. But wandering Jerusalem with a can of pepper spray in my left pocket, an extra pair of eyes in the back of my head and numerous new holes in my heart, for all the innocents killed, wounded and traumatized, I wonder: were Netanyahu’s missteps really the last month’s biggest outrages? This isn’t aimed at you if you tweeted or emailed about Bibi’s boo-boos while also objecting to Mahmoud Abbas’s inflammatory lies, to the murdering of Israelis, to stabbing a 13-year-old Jerusalemite in the neck forcing him to fight for his life instead of preparing for his bar mitzvah, to Gideon Levy’s absurd claim in Haaretz that “even Gandhi” would turn violent if he were a Palestinian, or to any of the misleading headlines obscuring Palestinian violence yet blaming Israel.

An inconvenient terror attack: Richard Baehr ****

Al Gore was a few hours into his 24-hour global warming telethon in Paris, designed to fire up the faithful for the coming climate change conference in Paris in December, when ISIS mass murderers chose that evening to massacre as many innocents as they could find in the city. Gore’s global warming faithful are a large club at this point, attracting all who think the planet faces one primary threat — an apocalyptic overheated future in the next few decades if too much carbon is burned. After all, if one looks at the doctored temperature records, one might think the world has warmed by 0.8 degrees centigrade since the Industrial Revolution began 165 years ago. The “climate change is very scary” club includes Democratic presidential candidates among its ranks, as well as U.S. President Barack Obama. Gore, a former presidential candidate himself, is, of course, the author of “An Inconvenient Truth,” in which he laid out the climate problem as he understood it. The timing of the attacks in Paris was inconvenient for Gore’s broadcast, but also for the climate change army headed to Paris in two weeks, who wanted no distraction from their single minded focus on their issue. International media outlets expected to make Paris and climate change the association that stuck with their audiences, but now it will be Paris and Islamic terror.

Environmentalists have warned of future climate refugees, forced to leave their coastal homes soon to be overrun by rising seas and travel to new lands to find new homes. However, to add one more inconvenient truth, refugees are already on their way, in the millions, and not due to climate change, but rather due to wars in the Islamic world which have driven them out, and the compassionate instincts of many Europeans, who encourage them to migrate in, signaling they will be welcomed and supported by their new societies.