Sunday, June 4, 2017

After London.

Doodad

I recently posted "After Manchester," to discuss what happens after that horrible attack. Who knew what followed would be this most recent London attack? Rhetorical question, I know. We don't know much about the actual attackers; police will release names etc when it is "operationally possible." But there are some disturbing details leaking out.
  • One attacker had twice been referred to terror police
  • They had done nothing about it.
  • He was radicalized by an American Hate preacher Ahmad Musa Jibril from Dearborn Michigan  over YouTube
  • He had tried to convert local children
This may be why PM May now says the internet must be regulated; something I suggested last post. She also says "there is ‘far too much tolerance of extremism’ in UK and suggests increased jail terms for terrorism offenses." No mention yet of my suggestion about closing Mosques and jailing hate preachers but she did say progress "will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations." No, REALLY?

Of course, there is still the same old silliness that comes from politicians being unable or unwilling to name the real enemy.  “It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth,” she said. “Defeating this ideology is one of the great challenges of our time. But it cannot be defeated through military intervention alone.”

So, I suspect these posts of mine may become a regular feature...After (insert name of British city most recently attacked.)

32 comments:

  1. You should write more often, Doodad.

    Develop your style. Put some time into the editing, researching, and writing. Go for between 500 and 1,000 words.

    As for the mosques, they obviously need to be monitored and those inciting violence should be deported. Some people would see that as a hard-line right-wing view. But, then, some people are either ideologically blinkered or flat-out stupid.

    It's just commonsense, for chrissake.

    If people do not acknowledge the threat of political Islam by this point then they never will.

    But, imo, we need to draw a sharp line between regular Muslims and jihadis.

    I don't give a rat's ass what religion anyone follows so long as they do not promote a political philosophy that turns others into second class citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. How "right wing" was he?
      FDR put Americans of Japanese ancestry into internment camps and refused entry to Jews running for their lives from industrial genocide.
      Obama suspended entry of Iraqis for a time. Carter stripped student visas from Iranian students, (Iran is a Muslim majority country, oh my!).
      Wasn't sedition an offense during WW1 under progressive Woodrow Wilson?

      "Right wingers" every one of them.

      Delete
    2. Jeff, a page has turned since all that;Trump/Hitler/Satan was elected. Those guys did it because they were good, smart guys. Trump did it because he is Hitler/Satan.

      Delete
    3. Is it the case that the only immigrants who have ever entered the UK are Muslims? I ask because I hear discussions where it is said that the reason these attacks happen is because "we're not nice enough to these people," or, "we haven't done enough to assimilate them." (I'm trying to think of what the US gov't. actively did to assimilate my forebears aside from just letting them in the country.) Is it the case that other immigrants are treated just dandy but the English just have it in for Muslims? Oh, how do I wish there were only some way to measure this! What do we need to do to assimilate Muslims that we don't need to do with other immigrant populations, because I haven't noticed any other immigrants running people over with vans while their friends are busy stabbing people to death in the street, shooting up night clubs, planting bombs, and beheading people. Surely these jihadists just want the same things as the rest of us. For example, we all want to live under Sharia, no? (SARCASM!)
      O.K. What I have heard or read is that a certain number of people actually convert to Islam after one of these horrific attacks. A larger number start to advocate more acceptance, leniency, and justification for Muslim behavior, while of course telling us that none of this has to do with Islam.
      Christopher Hitchens described the West's lack of fight against all this as, and I am paraphrasing, "sadism brought to you by masochists."

      Delete
  2. http://pamelageller.com/2017/06/london-jihadi-im-ready-whatever-need-name-allah-ready-name-allah-needs-done-including-killing-mother.html/

    ReplyDelete
  3. If British police had put as much time and energy into investigating this guy (and Lord knows how many others they have been told about) as they have Tommy Robinson (right wing activist,) this tragedy may not have happened. But stuff like Rotherham gives us a clue why this doesn't happen. Probably Robinson needs investigation but he's low hanging fruit IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You have to get a chuckle over their 'we had him on our radar' statements. Seemingly Ms May's call to suppress the internet would....fix? all of that? Assuming of course all the jihadis are white middle aged blue collar people who occasionally tweet obnoxious things about Islam.

    So stock up on your votive candles and cheap bouquets. Put that hijab on your head, ladies. And if you happen to live in a neighborhood slated to become part of an Islamic Autonomous Region, learn a little Koran in Arabic.

    BTW Corbyn's poll numbers have never been higher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah Trudy. Corbyn never met a terrorist he didn't want to befriend so I guess the Brits figure he'll kill them with kindness.

      Delete
  5. Exactly how do you want to regulate the internet? Censorship? Who will be the censors? Who will be the regulators? Close the onsques? What happens when radicals want to close synagogues?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are being antagonistic rather than conversational.

      You've missed the fundamental thrust of this post.

      Delete
    2. No i'm not. I'm trying to show the difficulty of regulating the freedom of the internet and freedom of religion.

      Delete
    3. Regulating freedom on the internet? Are there any limits on this freedom or is it different from other freedoms all of which have limits?
      I don't why you're talking about synagogues. Care to elaborate? Why would synagogues be closed? You seem not to have much faith the common sense of your fellow citizens.

      Delete
    4. Joseph, I said close the hate preaching Mosques. Freedom of religion would not be an issue because I take Muslims at their word that Islam is a religion of peace; therefore they should be happy to have twisted centres of hate speech in their religion's name shut down. It's already been done in some other countries altho I suspect given the USA reaction to the travel ban based on freedom of religion issues, no headway could be made there. As far s the internet is concerned, regulation probably wouldn't fly in the USA but many other countries have hate speech laws so might be able to do something.

      So, in summary, yes it would be difficult in the USA and possibly several other countries but not so much in others where there have been problems and in fact some of those countries have already done some of these things.

      Delete
    5. I don't know what drugs these judges are taking to hallucinate that First Amendment protections extend to foreigners living in foreign countries or that powers given to the executive don't actually extend to the executive.
      Possibly it's the new drug, PC, a cocktail of egocentrism, hubris, and opiates.

      Delete
    6. Well, I am not a big fan of government regulation of the internet although, needless to say, I am open to argument. The mosques, however, need to be monitored for incitement to violence and genocide. If in the name of fairness they also want to monitor church groups and synagogues and Evangelical jamborees, or whatever, then let them.

      Delete
  6. My partner and I are always commenting at how much better ISIS et al are at social media and using the internet than 'we' are. They're as sophisticated as any professional website in the US. Their use of social media is professional, polished and focused. And it adjusts to the current trends as readily as anyone. Suppressing that is quite hard because it's one of style not just content. Anyone who's studied marketing and advertising knows that you don't have to hard sell all the time. You can seduce, convince, entice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&type=cn_appfocus1_ff&param1=20170523&param2=a0c5eb9b-91f6-4618-a9bd-2667de5140aa&param3=currentnews_0.2.0~CA~appfocus1&param4=news-googledisplay-v2-bb8~Firefox~hate+mosques+closed&p=hate+mosques+closed

    Various hate mosque closings in German and France

    ReplyDelete
  8. And now Melbourne.

    The terrorist perp with a long history of violence and previously plotted a terrorist attack was well known to police and was out on parole at the time of yesterday's attack.

    Can you believe it?


    Out on parole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Europe is in the process of collapse and the Jewish people are running out of places to live. At the moment it is down Israel, North America, and Australia. But will they hold?

      Delete
  9. All this could be avoided if we could just dismantle evil Zionist entity.
    My bet is Corbyn wins, and doubles down on that worthy goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corbyn has already lost simply by being himself. As for the election, he'll probably lose that too.

      Delete
    2. May appears to be desperate. She'll try to out Corbyn Corbyn to hold on. Whatever happens on June 8 there will be something like pogroms in England soon. You see this has never been about terrorism it's been about politics. May oversaw the utter failure counter terrorism in the UK for years as Home Secretary. It was never a priority. This is why mayor Khan of London quipped "You'd better get used to this" because he's right, you better. No one has much motivation to remediate this problem when, like in so many other places in the world, it's cheaper and more politically useful to slowly allow the level of atrocities and mayhem to ratchet up. Keep resetting the water level and eventually the citizenry will accustom itself to that new water level. Soon there will be another attack and another and another and another and people will go about their business. Because remember, only climate change is something we can't adapt to the change of. Only that. Every other change we're bad people for not welcoming.

      Semi-off point nerd factoid: anyone remember the series "Fringe"? The plot arc where the world in other dimension was periodically and randomly destroyed in small pieces where the two dimensions came in contact with and the people in the other dimension finally figured out that if they cover those zones in that weird orange glassy substance they invented they could control the spreading of each individual zone? Their world was littered with thousands of orange glass dead zones.

      This is like that. That's the world we live in. Every day you'll return home and hopefully a V-2 rocket didn't fall on your house out of the blue. Maybe it did and oh well. But we figured out how to limit the destruction in that one place and your neighbor is safe for today.

      Delete
  10. The Muslim mayor of London wants England to cancel Trump's state visit. Kinda ironic if you think about it. I think most of us agree England, and most of Europe, are doomed. Poland has no terrorism; it has refused Muslim migrants. This isn't rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The base thinking about internet regulation, travel bans, closing Mosques etc should focus on THIS thought experiment. What if we were at war? (Which, of course, we are.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "While only a small minority of Muslims are violent jihadists, polls show that large percentages of Muslims in the West actually support violent jihad. They may feel moral qualms about killing, or may just not be gutsy enough to kill, but they recognize that violent jihadists are following the Koran and they respect them for it. As good Muslims, they can't do otherwise."

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/05/why-i-refuse-to-lie-about-islam/

    ReplyDelete
  13. The UK Jihadi "list," is 23000 strong. 2 of the 3 London attackers weren't even on that list. Let that sink in then be afraid; be very afraid.

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/342476-mi5-23000-on-jihadi-list-lastest-attackers-didnt-even-make-the-list/

    We can only assume the same situation exists in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This "extremist," talk got me thinking. The picture painted of the last few British attackers was certainly not one of extremists. Indeed, many of the terrorists we have seen were far from what I would consider extremists. What they have been essentially are agents of, as Mike likes to call it, Political Islam. Every motive we have been able to ascertain evolves from aspects of Political Islam; every single one.

    We are not fighting terrorism here; we are fighting Political Islam and Mike has been prescient it occurs to me. Therefore, what we must destroy is clear. The Constitution and liberal values will not make this easy. But, then again, when have they ever?

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/27/political-islam-todays-anti-american-long-march-institutions/

    Probably THE best discussion of Political Islam I have seen to date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aayan Hirsi Ali is a hero.

      She writes:

      "Political Islam is not just a religion as most Western citizens recognize the term “religion,” a faith; it is also a political ideology, a legal order, and in many ways also a military doctrine associated with the campaigns of the Prophet Muhammad. Political Islam rejects any kind of distinction between religion and politics, mosque and state. Political Islam even rejects the modern state in favor of a caliphate. My central argument is that political Islam implies a constitutional order fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and with the “constitution of liberty” that is the foundation of the American way of life."

      Indeed.

      Delete
    2. Indeed is right. She is wonderful. Could she speak at Berkeley? Probably not.

      Delete
  16. The antisemitic terrorist loving party of Corbyn won 29 more seats. I am astounded. Whatever sympathy I had for them just evaporated. You can't save fools.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great suggestions here; bound to get a lot of panties in a wad:

    https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/dealing-with-terrorism/

    "It is relatively simple to do the following after each terror attack. First you identify who the terrorists are. Then, since most (all?) of them will turn out to be “known wolves” use the previously gathered intel to identify the mosques etc. that they frequented. Raid those mosques with the greatest disrespect possible – muddy boots on the floor, bacon sandwiches, korans dumped on the floor and possibly trodden on etc.. Gather samples of all the literature videos etc. Find the publishers and charities of the literature that is preaching Islamic supremacy if not outright jihad. Ban said charities and seize all their assets. If possible get the account books of both the mosque and the charities and publish the list of donors and the sums donated. Fine the donors a significant sum and, for the ones that want to come to London to shop, the Riviera to party etc., arrest them when they arrive and hold them until they pay the fine.

    There will undoubtedly be protests. They too need to be treated with disrespect – tear gas, water canon etc. Make it very clear that this will happen to every mosque that is raided and has extremist literature in it. If you don’t want to be raided then don’t push jihadi viewpoints."

    ReplyDelete