Terrorist attacks in London
The mechanisms: a vehicle and knives. The venues: London Bridge and Borough Market. Seven people are believed dead. Early reports are that five terrorists were involved, Two or three are believed to have been killed by police gunfire, and the rest apparently remain at large.
It’s not clear whether the count of seven dead includes the terrorists. Actually, as with most of these attacks, not much is clear right now, because the attack only occurred about four hours ago.
Tonight’s attack is part of the recent pattern of vehicles and/or knives. If a person has the will, it’s not at all difficult to carry out that sort of attack. It isn’t even necessary to get a gun or explosives, because just about everyone has access to a vehicle and a knife. I see no reason why such attacks would be stopping any time soon; there seems to be no dearth of willing killers and the police cannot possibly monitor them all even if they were determined to do so.
I’ve written many many posts about the situation, and so I refer you to my most recent ones: this and this.
RIP to the victims of this terrible act.
People are going to start fighting back when these attacks occur. It’s really the only alternative.
The terrorists can be confident that no one has a gun. Many of the police are unarmed as well. That may change.
Apparently some did fight back, with vigor. But it’s early, and you never know about early reports. We’ll see.
Griffin Says:
June 3rd, 2017 at 11:04 pm
People are going to start fighting back when these attacks occur. It’s really the only alternative.
* * *
The rational alternative is for the British government to quit excusing, subsidizing, and enabling the terrorists BEFORE the people reach the point where they take matters into their own hands.
Civilians fighting back against the terrorists would become indiscriminate slaughter, just as in the Troubles – and the IRA could not draw on nearly as large a fighter base as the Jihadi Muslims can.
Well I’m not talking about some organized militia type thing I’m talking about spontaneous actions when one of these attacks start. Once people start seeing a pattern they will begin acting accordingly. Then the nutjobs will counter and so it goes. Waiting for the authorities is just a death wish and while it seems like some of these societies have death wishes I don’t think it’s true of individuals.
http://www.newsweek.com/london-attack-isis-claim-responsibility-amaq-news-agency-telegram-572750
ISIS CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEADLY LONDON ATTACK NEAR BRITISH PARLIAMENT
BY JACK MOORE ON 3/23/17 AT 8:51 AM
The attacker, driving a grey Hyundai i40, mounted the pavement on Westminster Bridge, driving into civilians before crashing into the Palace of Westminster. The attacker then left the vehicle, stabbing and killing 48-year-old policeman Keith Palmer. The hit-and-run injured dozens.
British Prime Minister Theresa May, delivering a speech to parliament on Thursday, said the as-yet unidentified attacker is British-born and security services had previously investigated him for extremism but he became a “peripheral” figure.
http://www.newsweek.com/london-attack-ira-terror-threat-severe-bomb-terrorism-573629
LONDON ISN’T BURNING: HOW BRITAIN’S HISTORY WITH THE IRA MADE IT RESILIENT IN THE FACE OF ATTACK
BY JOSH LOWE ON 3/24/17 AT 11:01 AM
…
Long before ISIS or even al-Qaeda, Britain had experience dealing with terrorism; in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, the IRA enacted a campaign of terror with bombs, guns and even mortars on the British mainland. Britain’s security services have become highly effective since, and have been praised by countries around the world for their ability to collaborate and to effectively divide responsibilities.
So how does the threat of republican terror in the past differ from the threat of violent extremism today? And while some European countries have suffered a surge in attacks, is London–and Britain in general–any more dangerous a place than it was in previous decades?
For Frank Foley, a terrorism expert at the department of war studies at King’s College London says the threat posed by the IRA at its height in the 1970s was greater. The key distinction to draw, Foley says, is the difference between “intentions” and “capability.”
“If you look at intentions, it seems like we’re under greater threat today,” Foley says, “because jihadist terrorists are unrestrained; usually they try to kill as many people as they can, whereas the IRA in the past was more restrained.” For example, the IRA would sometimes ring in advance warnings of bomb attacks, allowing them to demonstrate their strength while limiting the loss of life. Successive Islamist extremist groups, meanwhile, have tended to favor headline-grabbing mass casualty attacks when acting in Western countries. But, Foley goes on, “you have to look at the other side of the equation, which is capability. The IRA had a much greater capability than jihadist terrorists do today in the U.K.”
…
Not since the July 2005 bombings on the London Underground have Islamist extremists managed to successfully mount a bomb attack or a coordinated attack across multiple locations on the British mainland. So what has changed since the time of the IRA? Why can’t Islamists develop the same capability? In large part, says Foley, it was the impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks that changed the political attitude toward terrorism in Britain almost as much as in America: “9/11 changed everything; it changed terrorism from one of a number of security priorities including the Cold War, the challenge of Soviet Russia, and other challenges, it changed it from that, to the pre-eminent security challenge facing the Western world.”
But, he says, there were lessons learned from Britain’s long fight against Irish republican extremism, too. “They’ve learned that over-reacting to terrorism, having things like [the 1972 British army massacre] Bloody Sunday, or internment, are counterproductive, and it’s better to have a more restrained approach,” Foley argues. And a British government order in 1992 that gave domestic security service MI5 lead responsibility over Irish terrorism in mainland Britain helped lay the foundations for effective future cooperation.
…
As Wednesday’s attack shows, that doesn’t mean we can write off the threat of Islamist terrorism to Britain. And, as O’Donnell notes, there are crucial differences when it comes to the current threat that make it in some ways more frightening than republican attacks. “The point about the IRA was it was something that we understood. We understood the history of why the IRA had their grievances, what they were trying to achieve. And there was a solution, which was to convince everybody in Ireland that it was better to work through the ballot box than the bomb,” he says. “It’s not clear to me that that’s at all a solution with ISIS.” ISIS’s eschatological belief system, aimed at inciting what it believes to be an inevitable war between civilizations, has little if anything in the way of legitimate political aims behind it.
At the least, though, Britain’s long history of domestic terror showcases the resilience of both its population and its politics in the face of attack. Parliament returned to business as usual after Wednesday’s attack, with a morning statement on the incident followed in the afternoon by a supremely mundane debate on the future of an incinerator in the sleepy southern town of Hoddesdon.
“We got rather inured to violence in the 70s and 80s in the sense that it was a regular feature of life,” says Powell. Foley agrees: “The reaction today is different; it’s more shrill, it’s more hysterical, from the media in particular, amplified then perhaps by social media, and if you look at the objective threat, this hysteria is not justified.” The British public, politicians and security services have much work through to do in combating the terror threat, but they can perhaps take some comfort by remembering this: The country has survived it before.
* * *
“More restrained approach” was the right lesson to deal with the IRA, apparently, as it worked (after a 28-year running battle).
A bit LESS restraint may be called for today.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/03/incident-london-bridge-sparks-terror-alert/
Returning to the earlier question, the attackers have essentially shut down the city for the time being. Will the Ariana Grande concert really kick off the next evening? And if it doesn’t, the government is going to need to refine their message of defiance and how they will not be cowed into submission. What the citizens may be more interested in hearing about is how, if there are literally tens of thousands of possible jihadists on the loose in their city, they plan to hold any more major events with the expectation that something else like this won’t happen again?
Knives are so much less effective as a means to kill someone than firearms. When I worked in the ER we saw many patients come in with as many as 20 puncture wounds (PWs) and lacerations, none of which were life-threatening. We also saw many poorly-accomplished throat-cuttings which just needed to be stitched up.
It does sound like these Muslims have some idea of how to inflict mortal wounds. If you’ve received training you’re probably much more effective than the ordinary citizen.
The British are all Israelis now.
For those subject to the approval/disapproval of the cultural “elite”, really attacking and/or killing young Muslim males who have gathered in packs (the most “morally defensible” target out there) faces two perhaps insurmountable obstacles. The first is the inevitability of collateral damage, that is, “innocent” victims of any violent action. These will be highlighted as “war crimes” or whatever by the MSM. The second problem will be that unsavory companions will no doubt become your allies of the moment, allies who may well be “white supremacists” and so on and so forth.
Collateral damage, unsavory allies, an inflammatory, madly hostile press. Add this to the mad hostility of the SJWs out there, who will serve as a de facto Fifth Column, “objectively pro-Hitler” — as Orwell once deemed British pacifists in WWII.
The war may have to look lost before these factors will seem irrelevant.
So I guess this means the MSM and Left can’t make this all about “gun violence” to avoid discussing who was wielding the weapon and why?
“For those subject to the approval/disapproval of the cultural “elite”, really attacking and/or killing young Muslim males who have gathered in packs (the most “morally defensible” target out there)”
Not sure what you’re implying, but if you’re implying we should target and kill groups of young Muslim males because they are Muslims and they are “gathering in packs” – in other words, that we should pre-emptively kill them because, who knows, they might be plotting something . . . .
Well, that’s evil.
I know, I know, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” . . .
The alternative to the Constitutional order and the rule of law is chaos.
I still have not seen a prominent islamic figure go on the record to rebuke the notion of islam that you get rewarded in the afterlife if you kill in the name of their religion. They just keep dodging the question every time it gets bought up without giving a strong yes or no answer. They cant answer it because the killing in the name of allah concept is in the core of the religion and it should be destinated as an evil cult albeit the number of believers this religion enjoys for that violent concept alone. What kind of a person is The founder of a relgion matters， even if all religions are fairy tales the messages are teachings differ depending if the founder was peaceful or violent. Imagine if genghis khan had founded a religion do you think it would be a peaceful religion？ From all records muhammad was a violent warlord and relgion he created was nothing more than a tool to legitimate his rules over the people in oppose to other opposing warlords.
Democrats and isis are very similar in a way that democrats are constanting brainwashing the youth of minotities that they are being targeted and under the attack of white people and they need to resist while isis is constanting muslim youth that they are being oppressed and under the attack of the west and they also need to resist the aggression from the left. Painting a group as victims，Painting another group of people as evil oppressors for the victims to hate，offering solutions to remedy their hurt feelings and problems for their supports and political powers for personal gains，no wonder democrats and islamic terrorists are such buddies buddies，they are essentially the same sort of organizations just tailored for different political systems and different relions of the world.
As a somewhat non religious person i find that christianity as a religion is fundamentally peaceful is simply because the enemy of the religion，the devil，is another supernatural being and very suggestive in the teachings that the devil is within ourselves，our dark side. Communism and islam are violent because they are painting another group of humans as evil， while christianity teaches believers to fight our dark side by resisting tempations in very logical ways，totally different systems of thinking. Christianity is about strengthing ourselves while socialism/islam is all about defeating other opposing humans
People are going to start fighting back
The British police were threatening to arrest those who had fought back with chairs and bottles. Sanity apparently has returned and that talk has ended.
Christianity is about strengthening ourselves while socialism/islam is all about defeating other opposing humans
There is a pretty good book about the differences between Christianity and Islam. I forget the title but it emphasizes that Christianity encourages inquiry into God and morality while Islam demands absolute obedience and Allah is unknowable.
Pretty stark differences and not much room for change.
Didn’t expect to be back this weekend.
Well, as the right honorable Sadiq Khan mayor of London pointed out, these are just things, like taxes, that people must be prepared to live with for the sake of a “Progressive Society” – hallowed be Its name.
I’m sure that all enlightened persons of goodwill shall agree that these deaths are small price to pay, even at a weekly rate, for the privilege of assisting cosmic evolution along its way.
I said: “For those subject to the approval/disapproval of the cultural “elite”, really attacking and/or killing young Muslim males who have gathered in packs (the most “morally defensible” target out there)”
Then Bill said: Not sure what you’re implying, but if you’re implying we should target and kill groups of young Muslim males because they are Muslims and they are “gathering in packs” — in other words, that we should pre-emptively kill them because, who knows, they might be plotting something . . . .
To which I reply: I wonder if you’ve been in France or any other European country in the last ten years. Packs of young Arab males who seek to menace or possibly terrorize young (in particular) females and/or couples, often drinking alcohol and listening on boomboxes to loud rap — you never run into just one. Are they carrying knives? I suppose you can find out. One of them may repeat Miggs’ line from SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, which if you don’t remember is, “I can smell your c—“, which is embarrassing to the female and delights the others in the pack. If you are there with your wife, what are you to do? I ran into this situation when walking to the store in Avignon with my French wife. We were at the time seriously considering moving to France.
War is evil.
I was just responding to those who always, after the latest act of terrorism, say, Sooner or later there’s going to be a backlash. People will start… and then they never spell out exactly what will be done.
Because they’re not even remotely serious. It’s just something to say.
Until martial law for the crimes of terrorism is introduced, nothing will change. That exactly what British authorities did when they were faced with Arab revolts in Mandate Palestine. This includes arrests and indefinite detention without charges and court warrants on the basis of intelligence information, death penalty by court martial and like measures impossible under civilian criminal law. Israel authorities let this measures in place at the territories liberated from Jordan occupation after Six Day War, and security services still use them (except for death penalty) on Arabs suspected in terror activity. It is harder to implement them in today Britain, but possible, if native population got pissed enough.
Nothing will change until a prominant progressive figure suffers in one of these attacks. I hope stephen colbert makes a trip to europe and by chance get seriously injuried in one of these random terrorist attacks， and turns into a real conservative after making a full recovery. I know ihave evil in my heart，but who planted the hatred there？
Miklos: Just do what French paratroopers did in Algeria during this forgotten war. Hunt them like rabid dogs and kill. I certainly understand that this is no-no for the present political regime, but regimes change. If liberal governments can not protect native population from alien savages, these governments must go. They would be replaced by more pragmatic governments with their hands not bound by liberal niceties. These regimes most certainly would be called “fascists”, but who cares? If only fascists can save Western civilization from Islamic menace, let that be. It still will be an improvement over alternative.
Dave: Yes. We need a sympathetic, photogenic martyr to concentrate minds. Such martyrs already do in fact exist, but none who’re part of the aristocracy of fame. No one yet with a “name.”
Dave: a religious war can not indefinitely being waged unilaterally. It is doomed to force the potential victims to respond in the like manner. First, by vigilante self-defense irregular formations, and than in all-out offence, first overlooked, than encouraged by officialdom.
Sergey: I don’t like to invoke specific “bad actors,” such as he French in Algeria, because baggage is baggage. I’m not a good person, make no such claim, but a great many in the West have been trained and behavior-modified since and as part of modern childhood to need to see themselves as good. To the point of “suicidal altruism,” to use the term coined by the WSJ.
Miklos: this “great many” still are less than a half of population, and they will behave as depicted in “Silence of the Lambs”. But what about the other half? In Britain there is still possibility to mobilize population and law enforcement within framework of the normal political process, albeit with some modification of usual procedures and rules of engagement. But on the Continent this is hardly an option, here the more primordial mechanisms of mobilization of society under stress would be involved, as happened in Germany and most of Europe in 1930-s.
Miklos – can you think of alternatives under the law that would work somewhere on the rational spectrum between the extreme of doing nothing and the extreme of illegally killing people preemptively because they are Muslim young men who *might* be up to no good?
Bill: In this rational spectrum lies what was done to German and Japan national during WWII in USA, that is, isolation and detention in special facilities, not exactly prison camps, with subsequent deportation into countries of origin.
Socialism is only peaceful in places where christianity still dominates and socialism turned brutal and violent in athiestic countries either christianity foothold had never been established there （indochina and china）or christianity had been radicated with force. Christianity is the catalyist for peace，something the liberals will never admit. In fact morality is a religious concept，there is no rational reasons to treat minorities well or be compassionate or care the well beings of the others without the religious context. In fact in a world without religion the most efficient and pragmatic way to live is eliminate the weak and eradicate any potential threats while we have the superious advantage physically over them.
What I foresee is something rather ugly, “militias” of sorts who will no doubt have within their composition some or many that look worse the more closely they’re scrutinized. Biker gangs, for instance. But I’m trying to view such action in a hardcore Macchiavellian manner.
Such a recourse becomes operative when inertia, fear, etc, inhibit the ordinary means.
I’m trying to see what MIGHT happen, and look at such action in a pragmatic manner. If Kemal Ataturk was in charge — just to pluck one example of someone who knew how to get things done. At one point Magsaysay was quite effective in the Philippines, guided by his US mentor (who later failed in Vietnam).
I’m just improvising. I haven’t devised an entire program. I’ll think harder. There’s a British populist whose name escapes me who’s interesting when he speaks on YouTube. He’s been imprisoned. I’m not sure why. Working class accent and knows it.
I’m too sleepy now. I have MS and each weekend self-inject beta interferon 1a.
In Russia there is a special term for such facilities: filtration camps. Here specially trained officers of internal security services try to sort out those who are really dangerous from other members of potentially hostile population and that either release or detain for more close investigation.
To summarize what i was trying to say in one sentence，civilization needs a belief system to exist and christianity has been proven by history to be the best belief system out of all existing ones with buddhism the close second. Christianity and buddhism are pretty compatiable if you look at them closely，christianity is the easier to understand version of buddhism，substituting the difficult high concept of cause and effect and metascience of nature with a simpler easier to understand concept of authority – God
Griffin:
Talk of “fighting back” might feel good, but it is really not the only alternative. And fighting back plays into the terrorists’ plan in that it convinces co-religionists who are not terrorists to consider joining the jihad.
Another alternative is to stop accepting immigrants and start expelling those that you can. Some, such as those from Pakistan, might have an unassailable right, as commonwealth citizens, to stay in UK, but others do not. They should go.
Finally, since prison is often a fertile breeding ground for home-grown terrorists than the ghettos they live in, there is no hurry to incarcerate every immigrant at the slightest excuse. But those ghettos need to be opened up and need to stop being off-limits for law enforcement.
This problem requires a multi-pronged response, but fighting back is not the only alternative.
F,
As I’ve already said I was referring to when an actual attack was underway. Sitting around and waiting for the authorities only will lead to more death and injuries so people are going to start fighting back like apparently happened last night.
And I have also said that the first step needs to be stopping all immigration from areas that are producing these terrorists and then a serious crackdown on existing citizen terrorists can be the next step.
This is all a pipe dream of course because I’m sure none of it will happen and, hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they charge people that attempted to fight back in an effort to defend themselves.
A cancer must be excised from the body or eventually it will metastasize and kill the patient through swamping the body’s defenses.
Half the UK’s citizens are committed to “suicidal altruism” and will ‘resist’ any moves toward effective defense against the Islamic cancer.
London is the UK’s most populous city. Muhammad is now the most popular boy’s name in London. Muslims have a much higher birthrate than the ‘native’ UK’s pop. 43+% of UK Muslims admit to supporting Sharia.
Where will England be in another generation or two? Go ahead, take a rough guess.
“As a somewhat non religious person”
Hi Dave…everything you’ve written this morning proves the truth of your admission. I think you unintentionally misrepresent a number of faiths here…Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam for starters…I’ll stop there.
Fighting back IS the only alternative.
The only entity that can refuse the immigrants is the government and things haven’t changed on that front in any meaningful way in most countries except Poland…
When I went to Italy for 2 weeks in April – I was PREPARED.
Especially when near crowds like at the Pantheon or the Spanish Steps.
I think most of the people carrying out these attacks are perishing. I think most of the innocent people dying are probably not aware of the WAR going on.
I was hyper aware of where backpacks were placed, the mannerisms of every nearby driver and what certain men were looking at – that’s brutal honesty.
They might be radicalized by my looking and so be it. THey are the problem NOT ME.
What governments cause, governments must ultimately fix, perhaps after a successful revolution to transfer power.
It is painfully obvious that (I think primarily from Pakistan) Muslims have flooded into Britain for decades.
It is painfully obvious they are there for opportunistic reasons via easy access, not an allegiance to British culture and mores. There are sharia courts in England, OK’d by the government.
The Archbishop of Canterbury recommended a place for sharia in Britain some years ago, and I remind you the Episcopal Church which he heads is the official “Church of England”, and the regent, currently the Queen, holds, among other titles, “Defender of the Faith”.
There is no place in civilization for Islam in most of its forms. Baha’i is an exception, despised by Shia and Sunni, which has its headquarters in Israel! Bahai’s number only 7 million worldwide, and mass conversion to it by Sunni and Shia seems preposterously unlikely.
If there is no place for the Islam that is an ideology disguised as a religion among us, we who accept it, allow it, are doomed.
There is only one alternative: we cannot accept it or its believers amongst us.
Idi Amin gave all 60,000 non-citizens of Uganda three months to get out, or else, in 1972. That got done. Most went to Britain, since they’d held Brit passports since the independence of India and Pakistan, and I think most were Hindu.
Ethnic cleansing is always ugly, but, asking academically, is there any other way?
There were in the news published before the fight started against ISIS in Iraq Mosul city and surrounding villages,
Reported: SAS in Iraq given ‘kill list’ of 200 British jihadis to take out
So those 200 “The hunt is on” says senior defence source as security services fear Isis fighters turning focus to UK attacks.
looks the “The hunt is on” not followed well after them back in UK and their families, their friends, their Imam, attending Masjid??
This is not can stop yes, reminder, any one under terrorist/ extremist behaviors just book tickets to him and his family with their father and mother put them all on a plane back to their homeland that very simple and human action this only way . These ugly killers do not care about human life and respecting humanity.
Do not blame the dictator back in ME because they new their people better that western world.
did uk polices huts after those women who have fled the UK to join ISIS’ brutal regime in Syria?
But “British schoolgirl” who fled to join ISIS in Syria now wants to come home they came back” may be pregnant or with a baby, Taxpayer pay for her self journey and her baby
Logic and reasons cant prevent violence，how many times have we seen justice，logic and reasons being used as excuses to inflict violence on others. The fact is governing with purly reasons demands too high a threshold of average iq of the citizens that its not going to be workable in most societies. governing with some religion elements inplemented covers the lowest denominators in society making sure that even those who are too intellectually lacking to understand the logics behind why its beneficial for a society to follow law and order to have a spiritual figure of authority to keep them in check
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/police-raid-properties-in-barking-and-east-ham-700059728#woman-films-the-scene-on-her-phone-from-a-balcony-overlooking-a-block-picture-id692202580
I’d like to believe we won’t end up in WW3 over something so stupid as this Islamic belief they hold, but it’s hard to see any other resolution.
Not power, land or greed, just a conversion myth that states people should die who don’t believe, that’s why I call it stupid.
That’s the way I see it.
If starting ww3 is the goal then whose goal is it? Is it really the goal of islam to start ww3 with the west，or some third party who will be greatly benefitted from a duel to the death war between the west and islam？
See Wretchard’s Three Conjectures. I don’t see any change in the inevitability of each step.
I’m astounded that the bright minds here can’t spot the obvious, first, easiest step: eject the imams.
EVERY imam is an alien paid by an alien power, typically Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
These imams are NOT supported by the faithful. They are financed by foreign despots. That’s how EVERY mosque is financed.
The First Amendment stipulates that there shall not be any state sponsored religion in America.
But mosques ARE state sponsored…. and by a hostile regime at that.
Without the imams, the Muslims have no marching orders.
It’s not for nothing that these attacks keep leading back to the same personalities (imams) at the same mosques.
The imams need go.
The mosques need to be shut down.
You don’t find hyper-radicalized Muslims WITHOUT a driving imam behind them.
Weapons stashes have been repeatedly found within French mosques, often in astonishing amounts.
Islam, in its foundations, is wholly incompatible with the West, the East, and the South.
Jihad is popping up EVERYWHERE.
It’s not a Western Culture centered jihad. It’s universalist.
blert:
Are Imams the anthropogenic forcing that realize principled expression in terrorist actions?
They act alone, but like our own homebred terrorists, they may be radicalized through an a priori conspiracy. This is a clear and progressive condition with the reinvigorated institutional and individual practice of [class] diversity.
One positive thought occurred to me. This is ISIS version of the Tet Offensive. The frequency of attacks is increased.
Their centralized stronghold in Iraq gets more desperate every day.
Some of their coward leaders who send everyone else to die are seeing their own end days approaching and are afraid.
I hope at least that part is true. I know it won’t end things, but it would still be a good thing.
n.n
please see this and then make your mind.
again send them back to Pakistan, haven land on planet.
Sickening moment two henchmen
Blert
Today they’ll be shutting down mosques to thunderous applause.
Tomorrow they’ll be shutting down Christian churches.
I’d prefer we stick with the Constitution and don’t have out government deciding who and who cannot be Worshipping where and in what way.
Regarding your assertion that EVERY Imam is financed by a foreign government. Any facts to back that up?
Any Imams engaged in terrorist activity should he investigated, deported, etc. But if you really think ejecting every imam in the country is the first, “easiest” step I don’t think you’re thinking it through.
It seems in all of these types of ideas people make the error of forgetting that a lot of Muslims in this country are American citizens and can’t just be “sent back where they came from”
Blert,
You’re taking some truth and generalizing it out to reach conclusions that don’t fly. Not every Iman nor every mosque is financed by the Saudis. You can’t deport U.S. citizens born here. Period. If they commit a crime or conspire to they can be prosecuted.
The next American Century: OR how I learned to love to walk and carry a spork…
Griffin, fighting back MUST BE part of any multi-pronged approach.
Fight back when attacked, AND stop letting in any muhammedans, AND harshly profile any already in the country, evicting those showing the least signs of “radicalisation” to places like Sudan or Pakistan with a permanent entry ban (and that includes revoking their citizenship), AND a complete ban on mosques and sharia courts, AND a ban on posession of muhammedan writings, AND actively supporting non-muhammedan groups in muhammedan countries.
Turn your country and hopefully the entire world in a place where those primitives are decidedly unwelcome.
Chuck, those imams not funded by the Saudis are funded by the Emiratis, who’re just as bad if not worse.
Same with all or most muhammedan organisations, certainly all the ones with a lot of money.
This will not be WW3. This will be extended colonial punitive expedition with some elements of genocide.
JTW Says:a permanent entry ban
Fact Check
http://www.francesoir.fr/actualites-monde/les-coptes-egyptiens-executes-apres-avoir-refuse-de-renier-leur-foi
JTW Says:Regarding your assertion that EVERY Imam is financed by a foreign government. Any facts to back that up?
Most if not all living on your taxpayer money and social Welfare.
However they got spacial grant every year as community body from the local government for their social work just like any other community groups according to the law.
as Abu Hamza’s family is allowed to STAY in £1.25m home and claim £33,800 benefits
Wife of Abu Hamza has right to buy £1m council house
Najat Mostafa, the wife of radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, will retain the right to buy her £1 million West London council home with a potential £75,000 discount.
If you would like to know more about Who is Abu Hamza? Read just thing how much taxpayer money went for his legeil case and travel to US to defend his convisctions.
Btw, so where in the news claimed when he reach UK firstly worked in a nieght club!!!
Mike K Says:
June 4th, 2017 at 11:43 am
People are going to start fighting back
The British police were threatening to arrest those who had fought back with chairs and bottles. Sanity apparently has returned and that talk has ended.
* * *
Not the first instance of the Europeans going after the people who either defended themselves and others, or complained about the need to do so.
Topsy-turvy-land may be starting to right itself.
Fred Says:
June 5th, 2017 at 4:09 pm
* * *
As I said earlier, it is one thing to whine about not being able to investigate, deport, arrest, etc etc etc every potential terrorist, but there is no rational justification for subsidizing them.
Also, I think anyone who flies to a certain list of terrorist havens should have his passport and return ticket confiscated on the way out.
To allow them to go and come multiple times without increased scrutiny is freaking insane.
“More restrained approach” was the right lesson to deal with the IRA, apparently, as it worked (after a 28-year running battle).
A bit LESS restraint may be called for today.
* * *
To clarify my earlier comment, I meant less restraint than the current nothing-much-at-all attitude of the Europeans and UK, not a return to the inexcusable excesses of the English during the Troubles.
FWIW, I think the English were wrong to colonize North Ireland in the first, second, and third places, but that didn’t excuse or justify the IRA’s terrorism in response, or the escalating spiral of violence.
However, if the governments don’t start doing something to convince their publics that security is more important than Leftist shibboleths, there will be a repeat performance.
Prophecy is not causation.
Lizzy Says:
June 4th, 2017 at 9:33 am
So I guess this means the MSM and Left can’t make this all about “gun violence” to avoid discussing who was wielding the weapon and why?
* * *
The Left and MSM can always make anything about gun violence.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/europeans-respond-to-terrorist-attacks-with-tougher-gun-control-laws.php