French Raid to catch Attack Suspects in Saint Denis

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 11:23:23 AM EST
Tags: Paris Attacks, ISIS (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Belgian and other intelligence officials say Abaaoud is dead. The French prosecutor says he's not among those arrested.

French police raided an apartmment in the St. Denis area where attack suspect Abdelhamid Abaaoud (aka Abdul Hamid Aba Oud,) and some others were believed to be holed up. Reports are that seven people were arrested (some nearby the apartment), and two or three people were killed. While Charlie Hebdo reported Abaaoud was arrested , the Daily Mail (best photos) and other media report that has not been confirmed.

'Hasna', a female cousin of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, blew herself up when the cops arrived at the building. Some police were injured and a police dog was blown up. [More...]

There was a lot of shooting for a long time. There were also a lot of ambulances at the scene, but during the 15 minutes that I watched the live feed, no one was brought out and put in one. One ambulance driver had enough time to change his clothes in the street. Then he drove off.

So did they arrest or kill Abaaoud? Didn't the media report earlier he was believed to be in Syria? What about Salah Abdeslam? He's believed to still be on the run, now driving a yellow Citroen.

There are reports this was a fourth attack team, planning on hitting Charles DeGaulle airport. (Added: Others reporting today it was a business district.)

I'm more interested in who in Syria put the plan together and directed the attackers, than the attackers or even Abaaoud, who sounds like he may have been sent from Syria to be the local coordinator. [Added: Daily Beast agrees he's not a "mastermind."]

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Dabiq #12: A Soda Can and John Cantlie >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

French Raid to catch Attack Suspects in Saint Denis | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

St. Denis (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by MKS on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 02:36:20 PM EST

That is a rough part of Paris. Strip clubs and high crime rate....Definitely not the Left Bank.

: And the gothic cathedral where the French kings (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 09:43:04 PM EST

are buried.

Not Sure if This is the Spot... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 12:38:00 PM EST

...but in case anyone had any doubts about HRC's intentions in the ME:

"This is a worldwide fight and America must lead it," she said at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris that left 129 dead and hundreds more injured, Clinton said there was a choice to make between fear and resolve.
"We must choose resolve," she declared.

I would like a reason why America must lead and point out that there are so many more options than fear or resolve. I choice neither, for the record.

She also took a swipe at Obama:

In an apparent break with Obama though, Clinton said her ultimate goal was not to "contain" ISIS, but to "defeat and destroy" the terrorist organization.

And yet:

In the fight against ISIS, Clinton underscored the importance of partnering with the Arabs and Turks, urging them "step up."
"This is their fight and they need to act like it," she said.

IOW, it's their fight for America to lead. Awesome, how can that plan not fail.

I get it, there is no stopping the war machine, but it's just so hard to read the flimsy justifications/rationalizations.

The good news, at least the right can't go after HRC on ISIS, she is basically saying the same cr@p they are, just in a bit more refined way.

And the zinger, she can hardly wait:

Hillary Clinton on Thursday detailed her strategy for defeating ISIS and terrorism across the globe, urging Congress to act and calling for an intensification and acceleration of President Barack Obama's current plan.
Emphasizing that the "time for delay is over," Clinton implored Congress to pass an updated authorization to use military force.

She is all things to all people (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by pitachips on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 11:22:02 AM EST

Progressive? Sure!
Moderate? Absolutely!
Less War? I agree 100% Let the Arabs handle their problems
More War? A necessary sacrifice! America must lead!
TPP? The gold standard!
TPP? I don't support it!


Okay Scott (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 06:56:52 PM EST

Simply put, no one else will do it and no one else has the resources.

And I don't like that either. I opposed our rescue efforts of the Muslims in Kosovo maintaining that the (now) EU countries should fix their problems and quit waiting for "Sugar Daddy" to show up. I called my reps, etc., etc. BUT when we went in I shut up and supported the troops.

Now, my turn.

Tell me what reason, moral, legal or otherwise that we are supposed to accept thousands of "refugees" that mostly will have a large number of people who will not assimilate into our society, demand special treatment in schools, work places and society in general. And it is very reasonable to believe that a percentage of them will be radical islamists or become radical islamist and attack us.

Why can't the Muslim countries accept them?

And your answer is???


Gee it sounds like you (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 08:38:26 PM EST

Think the Syrian refugees will act like Kim Davis.


People who can't assimilate.. (5.00 / 6) (#9)
by jondee on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 10:40:19 PM EST

like the people who demand to have prayer in school; who want to penalize those with a different sexual orientation; who are so frightened and ill at ease in society that they can't go outside without being armed; who can't accept advances in scientific knowledge when it conflicts with their religious or political ideology ..

Those type of unassimilated people.


: For that matter, I'm not sure you can call (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by jondee on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 11:43:21 PM EST

a person culturally "assimilated" in any meaningful sense when they proclaim that the pyramids were grain silos built by Biblical prophets..
And how can you say a person is assimilated to our system of values who is suggesting that people should be made to wear marks of identification designating their religion?
I guess when the bar for measuring assimilation is set that low for the Republican frontrunners, any refugees here should have nothing to worry about.

Jim, Good to See You and HRC on the Same Page... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 10:12:11 AM EST

...I mean seriously, you took offense to a comment that was basically ripping on HRC.

Who cares if they don't assimilate, since its subjective, and for someone who comes here for one purpose, to bother everyone on purpose, not assimilating is your milieu, but I guess when others do it you find it irritating. That is beyond funny Jim, the town jack@ss doesn't like it when people don't assimilate to their enviroment. Good one.

It's not like you are going to hang out with Syrian refuges even if they turn into your definition of good little Americans. So what do you care, seriously.

By special treatment, you do mean that treatment guaranteed by the Constitution. For a guy who claims to love that document, you sure don't have much respect for it. Yeah, the horror of new citizens wanting the same rights other citizens.

How can we possibly have that in America.


The Jokes Keep Coming... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 12:20:40 PM EST

Yeah, I guess charging it on the debt card is okay dokey so long as lives are destroyed, when it comes to actually helping folks, where are the resources you speak of ?

I would also argue, that Russia, France, Brittan, Saudi, Israel, Spain, Turkey, Iran, and many more nations have the resources to fight terrorism.

Lastly, how much are you willing to spend to fight ISIS ? Round to the nearest 100th billion please.


Not assimilate, etc. (none / 0) (#5)
by MKS on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 08:11:21 PM EST

Why would you assume that?

There will be very few refugees and they will be admitted over a long period of time.

You are really resentful of refugees.


It's the same underlying problem (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jondee on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 11:57:29 PM EST

he has with the Mexicans: not that they won't "assimilate", but that they won't so easily assimilate to the new White Citizen's Council i.e., the Tea Party.


et al (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 09:44:13 AM EST

I see that none of you can answer my question. No surprised there.

Jondee - I know you are not sure but that doesn't keep you from bloviating.

MKS - Look around you. I am a realist.

They sue to not have to drive delivery trucks with alcohol. Cab drivers refuse to carry dogs and alcohol. They demand special facilities in schools to prepare to prey. They demand that schools teach Arabic so they can prey properly. Check out clerks refuse to touch pork. They demand driver licenses with pictures of them in their burka. Their major political group, CAIR, opposed OK's law to ban Sharia Law. They try and set up Sharia courts. They demand prayer times at work and in school.

51% want Sharia law.

And do I need to detail the successful and foiled attacks? Here's a partial list of successful attacks

That is not the picture of a group of people who want to assimilate.


et Jim (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by jondee on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 10:01:51 AM EST

what I know is that you'll be eternally resentful of John Kerry because he went to Vietnam and then turned against the war while your chicken hawk heroes, i.e., Rush, Cheney and company all got deferments.

Also, that it took you most of your adult life to learn to spell "bloviate".


You appear to have a (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by MKS on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 12:14:26 PM EST

problem with Muslims.....

Most of your post complains about Muslims unconnected to terrorism. That is frank admission. Your chief complaint had nothing to do with terrorism.

And with respect to all these issues regarding Islam, you have not cited evidence that they are even refugees.

You simply do no like Muslims. You want to exclude the refuges because they are Muslim. That is bigoted.


et al 1 (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 07:23:40 PM EST

MKS - What do you think that radical islamists are fighting and dying for? They want to change the west into their version of what a caliphate should be.

Now, follow this carefully. The Muslims who sue because they don't want to drive a truck with alcohol or the check out clerk who won't touch pork or the student who demands a tax payer foot washing facility at school for proper prayer preparation, etc., etc., are not radical islamists.

But what they do demonstrate is that many Muslims do want to change the west's societal norms, and secular laws, into a society that is more suitable to them. In some respects this represents a more harmful situation than terrorist attacks.

And the vast majority of them were refugees, or immigrants if you please, at one time. I do not think that the Syrian refugees will he void of these.

So it is not a matter of like or dislike. It is merely recognizing what some of them are bringing to the table.

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

Now, I submit that I have no problem with Muslims in Muslim countries doing what Muslims do. I have no problems with Muslims in the US following their culture.

I have big problems with anyone coming here and trying to change our country by making demands and then calling those who disagree, names.

jondee - You can never make a point without snarking. For that I am grateful because if you ever actually make a valid point you will be ignored.

while your chicken hawk heroes, i.e., Rush, Cheney and company all got deferments.

You see, by making unfounded unproven and over the top claims you just make yourself look dumb.

As for Kerry, remember that I praised his service. And I do consider him a traitor for his actions after he was home.


et al 1 (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 07:23:42 PM EST

Many others do the same (none / 0) (#32)
by MKS on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 09:20:15 PM EST

Kim Davis......


Comparing Kim Davis (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 10:48:53 PM EST

to ISIS is so over the top that I gasp for breath I have giggled so hard.

What's next, Jesse James to Hitler?


One is more dangerous (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by jondee on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 10:54:44 PM EST

but they're both equally ignorant.

And one of those forces of ignorance is an integral part of the coalition you subscribe to.


How droll (none / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 12:50:03 PM EST

jondee again ignores what I have written time and again. In this case it was, and is, my support for Gay Rights, including marriage.

And since you like the word "ignorant" I am forced to ask:

Are you ignorant of my repeated comments or do you just want to make things up?

As for the ignorance of Davis and radical islamists, I have no way of knowing what you mean.

Was Davis was ignorant of the fact that her office was required to issue marriage licenses? I don't think so. Yet she refused.

The result was the feds coming down on her, jail time, and some gays having to go elsewhere for their license. (Which, I add, was wrong.)

The radical islamists appear well educated in the book of choice, the Koran, but wrong in using selected parts to justify killings of various kinds. The results has been for our feds to do very little beyond telling us that we must bear the brunt of the radical islamist's ignorance and absorb thousands of mostly Muslim refugees.

There seems to be a small difference.

(Sarcasm alert!)


: I'm not making up the fact (none / 0) (#44)
by jondee on Mon Nov 23, 2015 at 11:13:52 AM EST

that the Christian fundamentalists are an integral part of conservative-right coalition, now am I?
You need to stop making up false charges concerning people making things up.
Can you do that simple thing?

No, the comparison (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by MKS on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 09:19:13 AM EST

was between Kim Davis and the supposed examples you cited of U.S. Muslims seeking accommodation (or special treatment, depending on your view) for their religious expression.

I was not comparing Kim Davis to terrorists. You made that connection because you equate all Muslims with terrorists, again showing your bigotry.


You can keeping on making things up MKS (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 12:35:38 PM EST

which is also known is lying, all you want, but it changes nothing.

I use "radial islamists" because it clearly differentiates.

I had written:

Now, I submit that I have no problem with Muslims in Muslim countries doing what Muslims do. I have no problems with Muslims in the US following their culture.
I have big problems with anyone coming here and trying to change our country by making demands and then calling those who disagree, names.

Now. earlier I had carefully noted that these were not radical islamists I was writing about yet you responded.

Many others do the same (none / 0) (#32)
by MKS on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 08:20:15 PM CST
Kim Davis......

You wrote what you wrote. You can't change its clear meaning.

It be more productive if you addressed my actual positions rather than showing us all what your agenda is.


I don't lie (none / 0) (#43)
by MKS on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 09:30:07 PM EST

The catch-phrsase of the day is (none / 0) (#45)
by jondee on Mon Nov 23, 2015 at 11:16:23 AM EST

"making things up"..

It's short, resonant, and catchy.

And as the Heritage Foundation likes to say, who cares if it's true?


: Especially Funny... (none / 0) (#46)
by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 23, 2015 at 04:24:19 PM EST

...considering Jim went on a rant about assimilation now he's cool with it.
11/23:

Now, I submit that I have no problem with Muslims in Muslim countries doing what Muslims do. I have no problems with Muslims in the US following their culture.
11/19:

Tell me what reason, moral, legal or otherwise that we are supposed to accept thousands of "refugees" that mostly will have a large number of people who will not assimilate into our society, demand special treatment in schools, work places and society in general.

The Christian fundamentalists want (none / 0) (#37)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 10:13:06 AM EST

To inflict their particular brand of religion on everyone in this country.. They not only want special treatment in the workplace, in the schools, in their jobs and in the courts they want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.


The issue is method. (none / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 12:53:27 PM EST

Which I think you very well know to be true.

But be sure and let me know when they start hijacking air liners and attacking Methodists and other main line denominations.


: No your issue was that Muslims do (none / 0) (#42)
by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 05:37:51 PM EST

not assimilate into our society. Christian fundamentalist do not assimilate into our society. They demand special treatment in all the areas that you claim Muslims do. And while they have not flown planes into buildings, they have bombed buildings and killed individuals for no other reason than they would not adhere to the ideologoly of their Christian religion.
This you know is true whether or not your want to admit it.

This type of stuff is my biggest fear (none / 0) (#18)
by CST on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 10:15:20 AM EST

Of a Hillary Clinton presidency and the main reason I voted for Obama in 2008.


: I Agree... (none / 0) (#20)
by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 10:29:10 AM EST

...and I hope Bernie can use it just as effectively as Obama did.