Two Suspects Die as Police Raid on Apartment in Search of Paris Attacks Mastermind Government says raid is now over; heavy gunfire rang out through the morning in northern suburb By Inti Landauro and William Horobin

PARIS—Heavy gunfire rang out in a suburb north of the city through the morning Wednesday as French police laid siege to an apartment with terror suspects inside, potentially including the presumed mastermind of the deadly Paris attacks.

A woman blew herself up at the start of a dawn raid in Saint-Denis, close to the national soccer stadium that was targeted in Friday night’s attacks, and police said another terror suspect was killed.
What We Know About the Paris Attack PerpetratorsFrench authorities have named some of the perpetrators of the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris. Officials believe the assailants carried out the atrocities on behalf of Islamic State. Here’s what we know so far.

The government said at about noon that the siege had ended.

The Paris prosecutor’s office said investigators raided the apartment acting on suspicion that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a Belgian-born senior Islamic State operative may have been there.
French Police Raid Saint-Denis Suburb in Paris
Gunfire was heard intermittently in the area beginning at about 4:30 a.m. local time.

SAMU members and French police participate in a raid in Saint-Denis. Etienne Laurent/European Pressphoto Agency
Hooded police officers walked on a street in Saint-Denis Wednesday. A woman wearing an explosive suicide vest blew herself up as heavily armed police tried to storm a suburban …
French special police forces secured the area as shots were exchanged in Saint-Denis early Wednesday, during an operation to catch suspects related to Friday night’s deadly attacks in the French capital. Christian Hartmann/Reuters

The Changing Face of Radical Islam in Russia: Leon Aron

Leon Aron is the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
As Russia deepens its involvement in Syria, it risks more than a military quagmire. Its intervention exacerbates a growing domestic threat, one that could destabilize the whole country. A new brand of radical Islam is rising in Russia, fueled by Russian fighters eager to perpetrate acts of terror at home.

Even a decade ago, the scope and depth of this emerging terrorist network would have seemed inconceivable. While Russia has suffered its share of domestic terrorism, those crimes were largely perpetrated by Chechen fighters based in the North Caucasus region. When Moscow declared victory in Chechnya in 2009, it suggested that the threat of radical violence had been largely contained.

But militant Islam didn’t disappear. In fact, the fundamentalist teachings have spread from Chechnya throughout central Russia. They’re propagated by Russian imams trained in the Middle East and are finding new audiences among the country’s native Muslims, as well as Central Asian migrants in Moscow. Even some younger and seemingly long-assimilated believers are becoming radicalized. Like their counterparts across Europe, they’re turning to Internet videos and social-media messages aimed at arousing anger at Western “crusaders.”

This is a real danger for Russia. The country has become a new front in the war against militant Islam, a battle that Europe’s largest Muslim country is largely unprepared to fight.

Russia is no stranger to Muslim radicalism. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Chechen independence movement became more militant, propelled by a growing belief in Islamic fundamentalism.

Moscow responded harshly. In 1999, newly appointed Prime Minister Vladi­mir Putin launched a scorched-earth campaign that made the Chechen capital, Grozny, look like the ruins of Stalingrad. Chechen fighters struck back, often with spectacularly gruesome terrorist attacks, such as the 2002 seizure of a Moscow theater and the 2004 attack on an elementary school in North Ossetia. But this didn’t derail Moscow. After a decade of brutal fighting (accompanied, often, by massive human rights violations), the Kremlin ended the antiterrorist operation in 2009.

Obama’s ‘Shameful’ Policy Toward Middle Eastern Christians Elliott Abrams

In his press conference in Turkey on Monday, President Obama called “shameful” the proposals to give special treatment to Christian refugees from the Middle East. Here’s some of what he said:

The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism, they are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife. They are parents, they are children, they are orphans. And it is very important — and I was glad to see that this was affirmed again and again by the G20 — that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism….And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution — that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Discusses His Plan to Keep America Safe By Roger L Simon

Although several presidential primary debates have been held by Republicans and Democrats, little light has been thrown on the issues, particularly in the key area of foreign policy. This shallowness is not particularly the fault of the candidates but of the formats and the moderators who often seem more bent on generating food fights than on illuminating issues. Nevertheless, recent events in Paris have only served to reiterate that 2016 is, above all, a foreign policy election and that the next president had better be ready to assume the role of commander-in-chief “on day one.”

To add some depth to the discussion, PJ Media (via this Mad Voter) submitted four foreign policy questions to a few of the leading Republican candidates. The first response is from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Please note that we formulated these questions (and Senator Cruz received them) before the ISIS attack in Paris, although the senator refers to those horrific events in one of his answers. Look for more responses to the questions from leading candidates at the Diary of a Mad Voter in the days to come.

PJM: An October 21 letter from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to its president Hassan Rouhani details nine new Iranian demands for fundamental changes to the supposedly agreed-upon Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) already unpopular with the American public. Alterations would include the immediate permanent lifting of all sanctions with no possibility of “snapback“ and abandonment of any investigation into Iran’s past nuclear activities by the IAEA, making it impossible to understand what they have done previously, rendering present inspections moot. Further, the JCPOA called for a whole series of reductions of Iran’s nuclear stockpiles by December 15 (centrifuges, enriched uranium, etc.), none of which appears to have even started. Does Obama’s vaunted Iran Deal actually exist and, if not, what should Congress do now and how would your administration deal with Iran on your election?

SENATOR CRUZ: It is increasingly clear President Obama’s nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is illegal and non-binding on future presidents. It does, however, exist. And its existence, given Tehran’s track record of clandestinely pursuing nuclear weapons, cheating on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (most recently #1929 when they tested a ballistic missile last month) and 36-year track record of implacable and violent hostility to America and our allies, especially Israel, is the single greatest national security threat faced by the United States.

Trojan Horses at a Gallop By G. Murphy Donovan

Islamic fanatics struck another blow for cynicism last Friday night in Paris — wholesale and gratuitous slaughter in the name of their sanguinary Muslim god. History teaches few lessons these days.

We say “Muslim god” because most other religions forsook ritual religious slaughter centuries ago. Indeed, the nearest historical comparison is actually political. Before contemporary jihad, the Nazis were the last imperial movement to use industrial scale pogroms to underwrite an ideological message. Ironically, the EU now opens its borders to religious fascism more virulent than the political strain that led to the Holocaust and associated carnage of WWII. Angela Merkel does the ironic walk of shame here.

Alas, any distinction between politics and religion in a Muslim context is now moot. Politics are mostly religious in the Ummah and dystopic religion seems to be the only relevant politics permissible in much of the Muslim world.

Obama: “Not Interested in Winning” By Daniel John Sobieski

Tell us something we don’t know, Mr. President. We could have guessed as much by the puny air campaign more worthy of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick in The Mouse That Roared than by what was once the world’s only superpower. We wouldn’t be mounting any air campaign at all, had not the radical Islamists of the “JV team” Islamic State had not cut off the heads of two American journalists, Steven Sotloff and James Foley.

Our delusional commander-in-chief, who still believes the massacre at Ft. Hood by jihadist Nidal Hasan is a case of “workplace violence” and that the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris was a case of random violence and of victims being in the wrong place at the wrong time, pathetically proclaimed at the G-20 Conference in Antalaya, Turkey, as the Federalist reports:

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France,” Obama said. “I’m too busy for that.”

Too busy, the same as you were too busy resting up for a Las Vegas fundraiser the night Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith were murdered by a terrorist attack in Benghazi, an attack you and you’re Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, told the parents of the deal was caused by a video?

Jews need an Anti-Anti-Defamation League By Ed Straker

Jewish people need an organization to stand up for them. They should create one called the Anti-Anti-Defamation League, which can start by fighting the Anti-Defamation League, which ostensibly is supposed to speak up for the survival of the Jewish people but is actually advocating for their destruction.

The Anti-Defamation League said Monday that it is “deeply disappointed” with a slew of governors moving to block Syrian refugees from resettling in their states.

“This country must not give into fear or bias by turning its back on our nation’s fundamental commitment to refugee protection and human rights,” the group’s chief executive Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement.

“Now is precisely the time to stand up for our core values, including that we are a proud nation of immigrants. To do otherwise signals to the terrorists that they are winning the battle against democracy and freedom,” he added.

The problem is that many of these refugees do not believe in democracy or freedom. Many of them believe in repressive sharia law, which calls for subjugating all non-Muslims to Islam. And a subset of those are terrorists who will try to kill Americans, especially Jews. Greenblatt is strongly advocating bringing in people, many of whom want to oppress and kill Jews, as they are doing in France right now.

Iran: Nuclear Deal Going, Going, Gone? by Lawrence A. Franklin

Iranian military commanders, security chiefs and conservative media outlets are coming close to questioning the competence and loyalty of those in the Iranian regime who favor the JCPOA.

The surreal irony, of course, is that President Obama keeps assuring the world — as recently as last week again, when he met with Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu — that he is “preventing” Iran from getting nuclear weapons, while the truth is that his “deal” — if the Iranians ever sign it — not only green-lights Iran’s nuclear program, but in fact finances it.

Iran’s hardliners are pressing their attack on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which has not yet been approved by Iran. Iran’s opponents of the JCPOA have succeeded in halting any steps toward implementation of Tehran’s responsibilities under the July14 settlement reached in Vienna by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the US, the UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany (the so-called P5+1). But who appointed them?

While some reports indicated that Iran was beginning to take off the production line some of the uranium-enrichment centrifuges in the Natanz and Fordow facilities, contradictory reports suggested that any such action was halted due to pressure from Iran’s hardliners, and that dismantling the centrifuges had not been authorized by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and was therefore premature. Another report suggested that only a small number of outdated centrifuges had been decommissioned.

The True Cost of Europe’s Muslim “Enrichment” by George Igler

The United Nations, in 2000, advocated the “replacement” of Europe’s population by Muslim migrants.

There seems to be an economic premise underlying this view: that importing the Muslim world en masse into Europe is mutually beneficial. For decades, the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has been labelled “enrichment.” Shouting “Islamophobia” does not negate how it is virtually impossible to think of a country actually made richer by it.

Even in a country with an established Islamic population such as Britain, Muslim unemployment languishes at 50% for men, and 75% for women.

Those using an economic rationale to implement Europe’s demographic transformation fail to recognize the complexities of Islam: they ignore the fundamentalist revival that has been ongoing for over a century. One feature of this growing embrace of literalism is a belief — validated by scripture — that Muslims are entitled to idly profit from the productivity of infidels.

The idea that with time, Islam’s religious tenets will somehow moderate and dissolve, merely by being lodged in Europe, is wishful thinking, especially in communities where Muslim migrants already outnumber indigenous Europeans.

RUTHIE BLUM: THE FRENCH CONNECTION

When Islamist leaders condemned Friday night’s Paris attacks, which left more than 132 people dead and hundreds of others critically wounded, you just had to laugh through your tears.

Terror masters in Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Palestinian Authority actually had the gall to talk as if they themselves are not responsible for the ongoing murder of innocent people.

But hypocrisy, mendacity and lying as a matter of course are not the only reasons for their public expressions of solidarity with France during this frightful hour. In fact, what really bothers them is the fear that a rival group may be beating them at their own game. And hell hath no fury like a scorned, power-hungry radical Muslim with hegemonic aims and weapons with which to achieve them.

Such monsters, some in suits and ties to throw you off, are able to get away with playing the West for fools — particularly when the so-called leader of the free world keeps kowtowing to them, while espousing denial as a policy. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the bloodbath in Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama made a statement that put a smug smile on the faces of jihadists everywhere.

In the first place, he called the carnage “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” This is an amazing assertion, since I don’t even share Obama’s values, let alone those of a great portion of “humanity” inside and out of Washington, D.C. You know, like the multimillions of anti-Semites, Christian-killers, women-subjugators and child-abusers who are trying to win the war over the world’s character and soul.