Search Box

Sunday, June 4, 2017

The lies and half-truths just keep coming

After last night's terror attack in London, Prime Minister Theresa May said "that while the recent attacks are not connected, they are all bound by the 'single evil ideology' that says Western values are incompatible with Islam."

May evidently believes that preventing girls from attending school, forcing them to cover their faces, cutting off their clits, and killing homosexuals are all perfectly compatible with Western values.

In fact, the terrorists are right: Western values are incompatible with Islam -- which is precisely why the West should stop importing Muslims.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said, “I’m reassured we are one of the safest global cities in the world.”

Exactly what it was about last night's incident that he found "reassuring," Khan did not specify.

According to the Daily Mail, the Metropolitan Police described the attackers as being "of Mediterranean origin."

Wouldn't you know it -- those hotheaded Italians are at it again! Someone insults their pizza, and they go crazy ramming their vans into as many pedestrians as possible and then cutting as many throats as they can. Ciao, you pizza-haters!

(Evidently describing the men as being of "Middle Eastern" origin would have shown prejudice.)

The West is committing slow motion suicide. Those who keep their eyes open can see it, but somehow the global elites seem to want the West to die. 


Mark Caplan said...

You mean slo-mo suicide. "Mo" as in Mohammad.

British historian Tom Holland wrote that to "de-radicalize" these jihadists, you first have to de-radicalize the Prophet himself.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha, yes. And good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

I was surprised to learn about the latest attack. Too bad the Brits can't arm themselves with guns.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
It's high time their bobbies were given guns.

Anonymous said...

Okay, please let there be someone profiting or gaining from this mess, please don't just be another case of Hanlon's razor, I want there to be some evil bastard who knows what he is doing behind all this for a change.


John Craig said...

Ga --
The globalists profit by keeping nationalism down, by making all European countries as "multicultural" as possible, so that they can remain in control. May, and the Metropolitan Police spokesman, are not globalists, merely useful idiots.

Anonymous said...

Banning Muslims from the country wouldn't stop these terrorist attacks any more than banning Catholics would've stopped the IRA bombs in England during the 80s & 90s. Besides, how would it work in practise when Muslims come from all sorts of nationalities and ethnic backgrounds? Are we to ban white, UK-born Muslims with UK passports from entering the UK? And won't a Muslim ban anger and radicalise Muslims who previously wanted nothing to do with terrorism?

As incredible as it sounds to gun-loving Americans, giving guns to the police won't stop terrorist attacks either (see: Boston Marathon Bombing & Orlando Nightclub Shooting). The proliferation of guns would exacerbate the problem. I am quite happy to live in a country where the murder rate is 0.9 per 100,000 people, compared to the USA's 3.9 per 100,000. This statistic either that means Americans are 4x more evil than we are, or the guns make murder 4x easier. So thanks, Americans, but no thanks: I'm fine with not having my probability of being murdered quadrupled.

What *would* have a chance of stopping these atrocities would be to end the West's military involvement in the Middle East. The former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, said that the Iraq War has made the UK a less safe place to be. Osama Bin Laden said that his men would stop their attacks if the West stopped interfering in Muslim countries. As controversial as it sounds to some, listening to what terrorists want and negotiating with them can stop their attacks: it was the only thing that worked in Northern Ireland. Some detest this approach because "principles", but would could possibly be more principled than saving innocent civilians?

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin ---
Trump's "Muslim ban" wa snot a ban of all Muslims, it was a ban on immigrants from seven countries which are known as hotbeds of terrorism: Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya. There were something like 40-ish majority Muslim countries which were not affected. I should have been more specific about that. And there's also been a lot of talk about vetting new immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, and that's a good idea too. (Profiling is the only common sense way to combat both terrorism or domestic crime; I've looked like I could be a terrorist most of my life and it always bothered me that the security people at airports would let me go by without notice while they would carefully check some little old white lady in the interest of political correctness. That certainly didnt make me feel any safer.)

Also, I'm not suggesting a "proliferation" of guns in the UK: I'm only suggesting that the police be given them. One of the first policemen on the scene in London Saturday night was an off-duty bobby armed with only a baton, and he was seriously wounded for his attempt to stop them. Had he been armed, as off-duty police in the US often are, that would have put an end to the incident right there.

I agree completely that the West should end its military involvement in the Middle East. I was against the Afghanistan War after the first two years (and it's lasted for over 13 years now) and was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I have to admit, though, that I do think ISIS has to be stamped out. But your larger point is correct, that we gasp in horror at a Manchester or a London, but we rarely hear about the women and children who are killed by our bombs over there. My preference would be, once ISIS is stopped, to just withdraw from that area of the world entirely.

The other question here is, should the West be a dumping ground for low-IQ refugees from places they've made a mess of? The West has been the only area of the world which feels obliged to take in people who are not going to add to their countries, and will most likely subtract from them. Look at what the Muslim populations of France, Sweden, Germany, etc. have done to those countries. Even without terrorism, the incidence of rape and other violent crime has gone up tremendously. These used to be safe countries, and are now much less so. Let the refugees stay in their own countries unless they can prove they will be an asset to their new countries. In that we should follow the examples of Israel, Japan, and even Mexico (which has far more stringent and self-interested laws on immigration than the US does, despite the fact that they lecture us all the time).

Anonymous said...

Agreed with you on the profiling, however annoying it would be for people who fit the profile. As a young man, my father would always be stopped, questioned and searched at every airport he took off from and arrived into. His guess is that he must've looked similar to an international criminal who was on the run at the time. He eventually stopped getting that, presumably because the actual criminal had been caught.

I was referring more to the "Too bad the Brits can't arm themselves with guns" comment. The very rare gun violence in the UK tends to be gang-on-gang, and in places where innocents stay clear of, so the very idea of guns freaks a lot of Brits out. Like most Brits, I've never even seen a real gun before (except on TV). Guns just aren't part of our culture and we're very happy to keep it that way. Actually, the police do have guns in the UK, just not every officer, as they simply aren't needed (tasers and pepper spray are sufficient). UK police officers are at much less risk of being killed on duty than US cops.

The other thing that could help against terrorism is more money diverted into ordinary policing instead of into mass surveillance. Most terrorists are already known to the security services before their atrocity, but the security services were too busy spying on the whole population to stop that individual. In the UK, the number of police officers have been cut by 20,000 since 2010 whereas money for GCHQ has more than doubled despite there being no evidence that mass surveillance makes us safer:

- Gethin

Anonymous said...

Phew, at least there is some actual malice for a change instead of stupidity, but the bastards are multinational united globalists, and worse, among them this is not a deliberate consistent conspiracy for a satanic or reptillian new world order but a mutual co-operation for greed.

But when has there ever truly been one single guy responsible for a gigantic problem, who, gotten rid of will fix everything? Or even a group who has perfect control of everything, knows exactly what they are doing with a greater goal than immediate money or power?

There are sociopaths at work, but they only make up a fraction of the human race, we can count the number of sociopaths we have met face to face in our lives on one or two hands, the rest, the hundreds of bastards we have seen causing problems are just gigantic shortsighted jerkasses.

So it's incompetence and human greed, desire, vanity as usual for the most part. There is no head of the snake. It's a gigantic bucket of crabs, not a gigantic snake with a tiny head. I just wish that there is a clear named villain.

My dad worked in many companies, and contrary to popular belief, the CEO is not always the bad guy. The best bad guys can be the CFOs or people in lower positions running from the shadows. A guy with a mere salary of 60,000 K a year can have a hidden bank account filled with more than what the CEO has. This makes it even harder to find the root of problems. Who is to say the head of many government organizations is the real person in charge?

One thing that comes to my mind on how to fix the problems in modern governments and organizations is to do what the President of Georgia did once. Georgia's police force was incredibly corrupt and incompetent, so he literally fired every single officer overnight and had every new applicant or person re-applying carefully screened. Georgia being a very clan centered country with many tightly knit villages could keep order for a day.

Maybe we can put every single politician in the world on a gigantic spaceship and send it to the sun, then start over again if we want to go a step further than Georgia did.


Anonymous said...

Gethin -

If the following from "The Times" is true, its going to take a lot of police to handle the situation (and unpredictability seems to be a big problem):

"Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday.

The scale of the challenge facing the police and security services was disclosed by Whitehall sources after criticism that multiple opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber had been missed.

About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorised as posing a 'residual risk'.

The two terrorists who have struck in Britain this year — Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, and Khalid Masood, the Westminster killer — were in the pool of 'former subjects of interest' and no longer subject to any surveillance".


"The two men who murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 had been known to the agencies but had dropped down the priority list and their continued adherence to violent extremism was missed. David Anderson, QC, the former reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, noted concerns in his 2015 report about the 'speed with which things can change' around suspects and 'the difficulties in knowing how best to prioritise limited surveillance resources'. Senior police have also spoken of the difficulty in identifying the triggers that might 'reactivate' extremist behaviour."

Full article here

- Ed