AG Lynch, Law Prevents Gitmo Detainees in U.S.

Posted on November 17, 2015November 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

Yippee Skippee…..Loretta Lynch got one right it testimony.

Attorney general: Law ‘does not allow’ Gitmo detainees in the US
The Hill: The Obama administration is legally prohibited from bringing detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S., Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged on Tuesday, even as the White House searches for ways to close the facility.

“With respect to individuals being transferred to the United States, the law currently does not allow that,” Lynch told the House Judiciary Committee. “That is not, as I am aware of, going to be contemplated, given the legal prescriptions.

“Certainly it is the position of the Department of Justice that we would follow the law of the land in regard on that issue.”
The attorney general noted that President Obama has said he will sign a new defense policy bill that includes additional restrictions on Guantanamo Bay, including new limits on where men at the detention camp can be sent abroad.

Still, Lynch maintained that closing the 13-year-old detention facility “is something that is a part of the administration’s policy.”

“The Department of Justice is committed to fully following that, and the closure of Guantanamo Bay is being carried out in compliance with that law,” she added.

Despite Lynch’s comments, the Obama administration is actively looking for places in Colorado and other states to relocate dozens of detainees from the facility, as part of its broader effort to close the detention facility. Of the 107 men detained at Guantanamo Bay, 48 have been cleared for release to other countries and the administration hopes they will be placed abroad.

This weekend, five Yemeni detainees at the facility were transferred to the United Arab Emirates.

The remaining detainees would need to be placed somewhere in the U.S. The list of possible facilities includes a maximum-security federal prison in Colorado, as well as Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

The president is believed to be releasing a formal plan to close Guantanamo Bay in coming weeks. It is sure to be met with vigorous opposition from Republicans, who worry that it would both entail releasing dozens of dangerous terrorists as well as endanger the communities surrounding the prisons of those who are reincarcerated.

“We would expect that to come relatively soon,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Friday.

On Tuesday, Lynch told the House panel that no one had ever escaped out of a super-maximum security prison, which Democrats have used as evidence to support the president’s plan.

“I do not believe anyone has escaped from Supermax,” she said.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), however, worried that the locations could nonetheless be placed on terrorists’ hit lists.

“If you brought terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and located them in a particular city in the United States, would it not be reasonable to conclude that that would enhance the likelihood that that city could be placed on one of these lists?” Forbes asked.

Further, Lynch was asked questions on refugees and email servers.

UPI: Lynch was asked about other issues during the hearing — such as police-related deaths, radical terrorism, the IRS investigation and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was chief of the U.S. Department of State.

Lynch also discussed a recent plan by the administration to admit a number of Syrian refugees into the United States to aid in the European migrant crisis.

“Not only the Department of Justice but all of our agencies will make every effort to vet every refugee coming into this country,” she said. “Certainly there are challenges to that process.

“We do have the benefit of having that significant and robust screening process in place — a process that Europe has not been able to set up, which renders them much more vulnerable.”

The question and answer session followed a speech delivered by Lynch, which outlined Justice Department achievements and priorities.

“Our highest priority must always be the security of our homeland, and we are acting aggressively to defuse threats as they emerge,” she said. “We remain focused on the threat posed by domestic extremists.”

Govt Tools to Deter Terrorist Travel

Posted on November 17, 2015November 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

Legal Tools to Deter Travel by Suspected Terrorists: A

Brief Primer

11/16/2015

FAS: The terrorist attacks in Paris last week, for which the Islamic State (sometimes referred to as ISIS, ISIL, or IS) has claimed responsibility, have renewed concerns about terrorist travel. Following reports that at least one of the perpetrators of the attacks was carrying a Syrian passport, there has been heightened scrutiny and debate concerning the resettlement of refugees from war-torn Syria to Europe and the United States. This Sidebar provides a brief overview of some (but by no means all) of the tools the federal government employs to prevent individuals from traveling to, from, or within the United States to commit acts of terrorism. In some cases, the application of these tools may depend on different factors, including whether the suspected terrorist is a U.S. or foreign national.

Terrorist Databases and Screening

Decisions by the federal government as to whether to use a particular tool to deter an individual’s travel are often informed by information collected by various agencies that link that individual to terrorism. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC)—administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—maintains the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), the government’s single source repository watch list record of known and suspected terrorists. TSC provides various federal agencies with subsets of the TSDB for use in combating and deterring terrorism. Some of the many screening systems supported by the TSDB include the Department of State’s Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) for screening of passports and visas; the TECS system (not an acronym) administered by Custom and Border Protection within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to screen and make eligibility determinations of arriving persons at U.S. ports of entry; the DHS’s Secure Flight system for air passenger prescreening; and the FBI’s National Crime and Information Center’s Known or Suspected Terrorist File. Of course, while the TSDB supplies these systems with information on the identity of suspected terrorists, these systems may also include information on individuals obtained independently from the TSDB consistent with the agency’s particular responsibilities.

No-Fly List and Selectee List

Information compiled by the TSDB may be used to deter suspected terrorists from using civil aircraft and other modes of transportation to travel to, from, or within the United States. The safety of air travel, particularly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is an important priority for the U.S. government. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and charged it with ensuring the security of all modes of transportation, including civil aviation. Two of the most prominent means by which TSA attempts to deter terrorist travel is via two watch lists comprised of information from the TSDB – the No-Fly List and the Selectee List. Persons on the No-Fly list are prohibited from boarding an American airline or any flight that comes in contact with U.S. territory or airspace. Those on the Selectee List are subject to enhanced screening procedures.

Criminal Sanctions

Perhaps the most severe means by which to prevent persons from traveling to, from, or within the United States for terrorist purposes is through the use of criminal sanctions. A wide range of terrorism-related conduct is subject to criminal penalty under U.S. law. Many of the most relevant criminal statutes are extraterritorial in reach, covering conduct which may occur partially or (in more limited cases) entirely outside the United States. Persons who aid and abet a criminal violation may typically be held criminally liable for the underlying offense to the same degree as the person who directly committed the violation. Attempts or conspiracies to commit proscribed conduct are also typically subject to criminal punishment. Several U.S. persons accused of attempting or conspiring to assist the Islamic State, including through either encouraging others to travel abroad to join the group or planning to join the group themselves, have been charged with terrorism offenses.

Probable cause is required to arrest a person for a criminal violation, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary to sustain a conviction. Law enforcement’s suspicion that a traveler may be involved in terrorist conduct (or associated with others who have terrorist ties) may not be sufficient to warrant the traveler’s arrest. As a result, government officials may sometimes deploy tools other than criminal sanctions to deter travel by persons suspected of terrorist activity.

Passport Restrictions on Travel to Specific Countries

Through the revocation or denial of passports, U.S. authorities could potentially impede the international travel of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist involvement or association with an enemy belligerency. Federal law provides that, except as authorized by the President, a U.S. citizen may not depart from the United States and travel to another country unless he bears a valid passport. The revocation of the passport of a U.S. citizen located abroad may also have implications for his ability to remain in a particular foreign country, or travel from there to a third country. While federal statute provides that U.S. citizens also may not reenter the country unless they bear a valid passport, U.S. citizens who travel abroad appear to enjoy a constitutional right to be readmitted back into the United States.

State Department regulations identify various grounds for which passport applications may be denied or a previously issued passport may be revoked. Several such grounds may be relevant to efforts to deter international travel by U.S. citizens suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, including those permitting the denial or revocation of passports to U.S. citizens who are the subject of outstanding felony arrest warrants or requests for extradition. The regulations also provide that a U.S. citizen’s passport application may be denied or revoked when the Secretary of State “determines that the applicant’s activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.” However, the authority to deny or revoke passports on account of national security or foreign policy concerns is not absolute. The Supreme Court has recognized that the State Department lacks statutory authority to deny a passport solely on the basis of the applicant’s political beliefs; the denial must be based in part upon actual conduct that causes serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

In addition to regulatory authority to deny or revoke passports, State Department regulations also permit the Secretary of State to restrict the usage of U.S. passports to travel to a country or area in certain cases – including when the Secretary has determined the country or area is a place where “armed hostilities are in progress” or there exists “an imminent danger to the public health or physical safety of United States travelers.” Such restrictions have been imposed on a number of occasions, including restricting the use of a U.S. passport to travel to Iraq from 1991 until late 2003, on account of hostilities occurring in that country and the potential dangers posed to U.S. travelers.

Immigration

Perhaps the most effective and commonly employed means to deter non-U.S. nationals (aliens) suspected of terrorist activity from traveling to the United States derive from federal immigration law. Rules governing whether and when aliens may be admitted into the United States, along with the conditions for their continued presence in the country, are primarily found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA establishes several grounds for which an alien suspected of terrorist activity may be barred from admission into the United States, including persons seeking to come to the United States as refugees. Under INA §212(f), the President is also conferred with broad authority to act, by means of proclamation, to bar the entry of an alien or class of aliens into the United States if he deems their entry detrimental to U.S. interests, though usage of this authority has been relatively rare. While programs like the No-Fly List may prevent suspected foreign terrorists from coming to the United States via a particular mode of transportation, federal immigration rules and requirements may prevent such persons from traveling to the United States using any mode of transport.

The INA generally provides that aliens who are seeking initial admission into the country bear the burden of proving they are admissible. Moreover, judicial review of a decision by a consular officer abroad to deny an alien a visa to come to the United States, or a determination made by customs and border officials at a U.S. port of entry that an arriving alien is inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds, may be quite circumscribed or virtually non-existent. Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the country might also be removed from the United States for the same terrorism-related reasons as aliens seeking initial admission into the country. In the case of lawfully admitted aliens, however, federal immigration authorities bear the evidentiary burden of demonstrating that the alien’s activities render him deportable before the alien may be ordered removed. There may also be greater availability of judicial review than in cases where an alien has not yet been lawfully admitted. Moreover, if a lawful permanent resident alien (sometimes described as an “immigrant”) travels briefly abroad and seeks to return to the United States, he may be afforded greater procedural and substantive protections than other aliens who attempt to travel to the United States.

Immigration rules and requirements do not apply to U.S. citizens. Whereas an alien suspected of terrorism-related travel to the United States may be barred from admission into the country, other methods would need to be employed (e.g., placement on the No-Fly List, criminal prosecution, passport restrictions) to deter U.S. citizens from traveling to, from, or within the United States for terrorist purposes.

Governors Just Saying NO to WH and Refugees

Posted on November 16, 2015November 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

Growing Number Of States Say They Will Not Accept Syrian Refugees

Governors in 13 states have all said they will stop or otherwise oppose accepting additional Syrian refugees in their states.

At a glance: Governors in more than a dozen states have spoken out against the Obama administration allowing additional Syrian refugees to be resettled in their states at this time. They are:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
North Carolina
Ohio
Texas

ID: 7356986

Several state governors announced on Monday that they will not accept Syrian refugees following the attacks in Paris, citing concerns for security.

The governors of North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Arkansas announced measures on Monday to stop or oppose any additional Syrian refugees from resettling in their states. Alabama and Michigan made similar announcements on Sunday.

The terrorist attacks in Paris have brought renewed attention on the U.S. refugee program, specifically the threat that ISIS could exploit the process to infiltrate and attack the United States. Several Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have called on the administration to stop taking Syrian refugees, citing security concerns.

The governors of Connecticut and Vermont, meanwhile, have backed the Obama administration’s policy, voicing their support for accepting refugees in their states.

Refugees are extensively vetted — the process takes on average 18 to 24 months — but senior U.S. officials have said they are concerned there is a lack of on-the-ground intelligence in Syria that could be useful in the screening process.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order on Monday instructing agencies in his state to “utilize all lawful means” to stop Syrian refugees from resettling in the state.

“All departments, budget units, agencies, offices, entities, and officers of the executive branch of the State of Louisiana are authorized and directed to utilize all lawful means to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the State of Louisiana while this Order is in effect,” the order reads.

“The Louisiana State Police, upon receiving information of a Syrian refugee already relocated within the State of Louisiana, are authorized and directed to utilize all lawful means to monitor and avert threats within the State of Louisiana,” reads another provision of the order.

In a letter sent to President Obama on Monday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced that his state will also refuse to resettle Syrian refugees.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being resettled in Texas,” Abbott wrote in the letter. “Effective today, I am directing the Texas Health & Human Services Commission’s Refugee Resettlement Program to not participate in the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in the state of Texas. And I urge you, as president, to halt your plans to allow Syrians to be resettled anywhere in the United States.”

“Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity,” Abbott continued. “As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich similarly sent a letter to Obama, requesting that the federal government stop resettling Syrian refugees in Ohio.

“The governor doesn’t believe the U.S. should accept additional Syrian refugees because security and safety issues cannot be adequately addressed,” Kasich communications director Jim Lynch said. “The governor is writing to the President to ask him to stop, and to ask him to stop resettling them in Ohio. We are also looking at what additional steps Ohio can take to stop resettlement of these refugees.”

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, while ending state support for resettlement efforts, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that it was his “understanding” that “the state does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida even without state support.” As such, Scott called on Congress to prevent the Obama administration from using federal funds to support Syrian resettlement efforts.

Governor Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement on Monday, “Effective immediately, I am directing all state agencies to suspend the resettlement of additional Syrian refugees in the state of Indiana pending assurances from the federal government that proper security measures have been achieved. Unless and until the state of Indiana receives assurances that proper security measures are in place, this policy will remain in full force and effect.”

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said in a statement on Monday that he would do “everything humanly possible” to stop the Obama administration from placing Syrian refugees in the state.

“I’m currently working with the Mississippi Department of Public Safety and Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to determine the current status of any Syrian refugees that may be brought to our state in the near future,” Bryant said in a statement. “I will do everything humanly possible to stop any plans from the Obama administration to put Syrian refugees in Mississippi. The policy of bringing these individuals into the country is not only misguided, it is extremely dangerous. I’ll be notifying President Obama of my decision today to resist this potential action.”

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson wrote in a tweet on Monday that he too would oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to his state.

According to the Boston Globe, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker told reporters on Monday he was “not interested” in accepting Syrian refugees. “I would say no as of right now,” Baker said. “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria.”

“My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority,” Baker added. “So I would set the bar very high on this.”

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey said in a statement, “Given the horrifying events in Paris last week, I am calling for an immediate halt in the placement of any new refugees in Arizona.” Specifically, he called for the Obama administration to provide “immediate consultation” under the United States Refugee Act.

In a news conference, North Carolina Gov. Scott McCrory took similar action, saying that he was requesting that the Obama administration “cease” Syrian refugee resettlement in the state immediately “until we are thoroughly satisfied” that concerns about safety that he expressed are resolved.

Of the governors’ actions and statements, McCrory added that some of the governors will be meeting later this week: “I’m sure all of us will be speaking, as a group, in the very near future.”

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder announced on Sunday that they would attempt to block Syrian refugees from relocating to their states after the Paris terror attacks.

ID: 7354351

Full letter from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott:

View this embed ›

ID: 7354426

Full order from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal:

View this image ›

ID: 7355713

View this image ›

ID: 7355667

Full Florida Gov. Rick Scott letter:

View this image ›

ID: 7356853

Governor Of Alabama Says His State Will Refuse Syrian Refugees

buzzfeed.com

ID: 7354451

How The United States Screens Syrian Refugees

ISIS propaganda hub appeared on the Darknet

Posted on November 16, 2015November 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

The popular security expert Scot Terban (aka @krypt3ia ) discovered a few hours after the Paris attacks, a new ISIS propaganda hub appeared on the Darknet.

SecurityAffairs: The Paris attacks shocked the world, the war is overwhelmingly coming into our homes and the intelligence experts fear that this is just the beginning. The ISIS knows how to spread his message, none in the past was able to organize a so effective propaganda. Each media is masterfully handled by terrorists, social networks, instant messaging app, gaming platforms and forums course in the darknet.

In June, the Europol announced the creation of a team that aims to find key figures in propaganda campaigns run by ISIS members seeking to recruit foreign fighters. The Isis‘s machine propaganda is scaring as efficient, it generates something like 100.000 daily tweets, and it’s used to recruit foreign fighters to support the group.

The Isis is gaining a lot of power in the last years, for the first time a terrorist organization has resources and capabilities to proclaim itself a State.

For this reason, the Europol announced the creation of a new Europe-wide police unit to search for the core leaders of Isis’s social media propaganda campaign. The police unit will track the leaders responsible for an average of 100.000 tweets a day.

The Paris attacks have raised the level of attention on the organizations that could have supported the terrorist operations from the inside. What are the channels used by terrorists to communicate and what technologies they used?
Many intelligence experts point to the revelations of Snowden as an element that has greatly benefited the terrorists to escape the control exercised by the police. Terrorists are aware that intelligence agencies are carefully monitoring telecom communications, emails, instant messaging apps and much more.

That’s why groups like the ISIS are looking for new channels to reach wider audiences, such as the gaming consoles and the Dark Web, two environments where it is necessary a significant effort to track and identify the source of the messages.

paris attacks

A few hours after the cruel Paris attack, Daesh (al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il-i’raaq wa-ash-shaam, a.k.a. ISIS/ISIL) launched his propaganda on the Dark Web.

The website contains translations in English, Turkish, and Russian from the recent statement issued by Daesh claiming credit for the Paris attacks.

The new propaganda center was discovered by the popular researcher Scot Terban (aka @krypt3ia ), who reported it to the colleagues at Salted HASH.

The expert noticed a post that explained the need to create a new hub for propaganda, this is the response to the numerous operations against other websites used by the ISIS that were seized by law enforcement of targeted by hacktivists online. The terrorists decided to move on the Darknet to make the Daesh more resilient to take over attempts.

“Terban came across the new Al-Hayat hub while performing jihadi research over the weekend.” states Salted HASH. “In a post on the Shamikh forum (a known jihadi bulletin board), someone posted the new address and instructions for reaching it.”

The new website includes a collection of propaganda video and images produced by Al-Hayat Media Center, the media division of Daesh. It is known to the intelligence because it is used to spread content glorifying the jihad against the infidel West, including poems for mujahids and songs (Nasheeds).

In the past, Daesh already had propaganda and recruitment hubs on the Darknet, but as explained by the expert it is the first time ever it published proof of those claims.

Terban has mirrored the website and its files, the intention of the expert is to analyze them and publish more details in the coming days. The site is a mine of information , it includes data from various sources, including standard bulletin boards used by the ISIS terrorists.

“The site mirrors many of the other standard bulletin boards that the jihadi’s have had over the years replete with videos and sections in all languages. Given that this site has popped up today in the Darknet just post the attacks in Paris, one has to assume that an all out media blitz is spinning up by Al-Hayat to capitalize on the situation,” Terban wrote.

The new Daesh hub demonstrates that even if the ISIS is aware of the Internet surveillance of western government, it considers the use of technology as strategical.

The Dark Web is a privileged environment for cyber criminals and state-sponsored hackers due to the anonymity offered by its services. The Dark Web is difficult to monitor for intelligence agencies and it is not so easy to locate members of terrorist organizations like the ISIS that share propaganda content. In the principal black markets hosted on the deep web it is possible to purchase any kind of illegal product and service, but in the dark part of the web it is possible to find propaganda videos and images. Hidden services in the Deep Web also offer the possibility to download the mobile apps used by the jihadists to communicate securely and to transfer Bitcoins to terrorist cells in every place of the world.

The new Daesh hub also suggests ISIS sympathizer the use of Telegram, a secret encrypted messaging platform that is largely adopted by terrorists.

Telegram is “A Secret Chat is a one-on-one chat wherein all messages are encrypted with a key held only by the chat’s participants.” It is an essential tool for all the individuals that need to protect their communication from prying eyes.

Telegram’s Channels used by the terrorists allow them to reach tens of thousand followers instantly.

How ISIS Learns the Tactics, the eBook Series

Posted on November 16, 2015November 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

The terror cells across the globe are hardly operating in the Dark Ages, but rather they are tech savvy and are using published books on the internet written by experts. They have developed plans far beyond what world leaders are equipped to handle both in the realms of diplomacy or militarily.

Europe is returning to the Dark Ages [due to the financial recession]. Armed gangs are forming into militias for racist politicians, and a young Muslim minority is their enemy. All this while a Caliphate is growing across the Mediterranean sea next door. How does this mix of chaos lead to the conquest of Rome (the capital of Europe)? Read: Black Flags from Rome – to find out how.

Paris, photo on the left.

Europeans go to Syria: Many young Sunni Muslims from Europe would go in Aid convoys to Syria to help the oppressed Syrians who had been abandoned by the entire world. They would provide them humanitarian aid, and give them moral support. Some would even join armed groups there similar to how the earlier generation had defended Bosnia. Many of them simply wanted the war to end, for peace to prevail, and for the Syrian Muslims to live a safe life without Bashar al-Assad being a dictator over them. However, as hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed by Bashar, the West could not justify Bashar’s stay in power, but they were also uncertain about how the strongest [Islamic] fighting groups in Syria would rule after his removal. So they simply waited, hoping to see a clearer perspective on who could win the war. Depending on who the victor was, they would plan accordingly. The Islamic State re-awoke within the midst of this Syrian war, after the exit of American troops from Iraq in 2010. Many of the Muslim emigrants who came to help the Syrians joined the Islamic State. Sunni armed groups who were being funded by Arab regimes were paid to fight the Islamic State instead of the real enemy Bashar al Assad, so the Islamic State fought back. The Western powers would not get involved in physical ground combat because they had just withdrawn from a failed war in Iraq (their public wouldn’t be happy with it.) This opportunity gave the Islamic State to grow stronger, with more fighters and more territory and resources as the world watched on.

Those who had left Europe to join the Islamic State would now be able to help other Europeans’ get into Syria. They would give them Tazkiyah (recognition of ‘purity’ from being a spy or agent). The Tazkiyah meant that the fighter of the Islamic State in Syria trusted his friend to join the Islamic State. As a result, thousands of new generation Muslims from Europe and from around the world were able to get into Syria and train in the Training camps of the Islamic State. Here they could learn basic armed/shooting combat, assassination techniques, how to make exp0sives from homemade materials etc.

As soon as the Syrian Jihad begun, the Islamic State competed with other groups to capture the vast Syrian-Turkish border. All groups wanted to control this border so they could access Turkey. Turkey was strategic because it was the place where its fighters could buy equipment from, from where all foreign fighters would enter to join the Islamic State and most importantly – where its experienced fighters would leave Syria (as ‘refugees’) into Turkey, and from Turkey would enter into Europe. [Note: many Syrian refugees were even escaping to Italy due to the civil war in Syria. No doubt, some of these refugees were undercover fighters of Al Qa’idah and the Islamic State. They were quick to take the opportunity of entering into the different countries of Europe (most probably as early as 2012). All this was happening under the nose of the European intelligence services whose job during this time (2012) was only to prevent European Muslims from entering Syria. (This shows how quick the Islamic groups were in planning ahead. Years before Europe even knew where its Muslim citizens were going – experienced Islamic fighters had already found safety in Europe.) While the experienced Islamic State fighters left Syria for Europe, the European Muslims who had emigrated to the Islamic State would train within the Training camps, and nobody doubted -neither the Islamic State, nor the West- that some of these trainees would be sent back to Europe to form their own secret cells to continue the Jihad and to seek revenge for the Western occupation of Muslim lands. These fighters would simply receive their training and be told to go back to their European home countries, to go into ‘sleeper cell’ mode until the Khalifah (Caliph) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ordered to start attacks in Europe.