As the inquest in to the 7/7 atrocity begins you can be sure of one thing.
It won't be anything to do with Islam or Moslems.
They'll blame poor communications between various organisations.
But it won't be anything to do with Islam or Moslems.
The police and security services will come in for criticism.
But it won't be anything to do with Islam or Moslems.
They'll probably find that there were failings by government.
But it won't be anything to do with Islam or Moslems.
They'll probably even manage to criticise the transport infrastructure and providers.
But it won't be anything to do with Islam or Moslems.
It never is.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Monday, October 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Double standards
First of all, I have to say that I believe David Milliband's response to the alleged use of forged British passports by Mossad spies was the correct one. Indeed, I was actually reasonably impressed by the tone of his comments as well as the tough stance the FO has taken.
However, I suspect that a lot of that was due to the fact that he was dealing with a nation which I honestly don't believe Milliband has any interest in supporting. In fact, I suspect that Milliband - like a lot of people on the left - would be happier if Israel would somehow cease to exist as they believe this would solve a lot of the world's problems with Islamism. It wouldn't, of course, as Islamic militancy and violence existed for a long time before modern Israel came along.
But the clincher for me is the fact that Milliband works himself into a lather over the use of forged passports by Israelis - but seems remarkably unconcerned about the use of legitimate British passports by Islamic militants. Indeed, they hand them out to all and sundry like sweets to children. Not only that, but proven terrorists are welcomed into this country where they are then given homes, money and support while they continue to direct and encourage violence against our own people and our allies.
I think Milliband was quite right to kick out an Israeli diplomat - but by the same standard there are several thousand Islamic militants that he should be do the same thing to. The fact that he won't exposes where his true sympathies lie.
However, I suspect that a lot of that was due to the fact that he was dealing with a nation which I honestly don't believe Milliband has any interest in supporting. In fact, I suspect that Milliband - like a lot of people on the left - would be happier if Israel would somehow cease to exist as they believe this would solve a lot of the world's problems with Islamism. It wouldn't, of course, as Islamic militancy and violence existed for a long time before modern Israel came along.
But the clincher for me is the fact that Milliband works himself into a lather over the use of forged passports by Israelis - but seems remarkably unconcerned about the use of legitimate British passports by Islamic militants. Indeed, they hand them out to all and sundry like sweets to children. Not only that, but proven terrorists are welcomed into this country where they are then given homes, money and support while they continue to direct and encourage violence against our own people and our allies.
I think Milliband was quite right to kick out an Israeli diplomat - but by the same standard there are several thousand Islamic militants that he should be do the same thing to. The fact that he won't exposes where his true sympathies lie.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Compare and contrast
The Foreign Office, BBC and liberal establishment are up in arms about the use of forged British passports by alleged Israeli secret agents to carry out the assassination of a senior Hamas official.
Funny how they are so upset about that, but considerably less concerned by the number of Moslems with legitimate British passports caught attempting to carry out indiscriminate mass murder.
It's a funny old world.
Funny how they are so upset about that, but considerably less concerned by the number of Moslems with legitimate British passports caught attempting to carry out indiscriminate mass murder.
It's a funny old world.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
MIssing the point on profiling
As airports are set to introduce more and more stringent and intrusive methods to determine whether or not little old Granny Smith is really a suicide bomber with 5lbs of Semtex hidden in her balls of wool, the debate about "profiling" starts up again.
Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.
No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.
Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.
The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.
There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.
Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?
Some say it won't work because not all those who have tried to explode a bomb on an aeroplane would have fitted the "profile" of a Moslem suicide bomber - but this is where they miss the point.
No system of screening people at airport security will be 100% perfect. Even if you submit everyone boarding the plane to strip searches, body cavity searches and whole body scanning there is always a chance that someone will get something through that will blow up the aeroplane. It's only a matter of time before someone invents an explosive prosthetic limb or detonating dentures.
Airport security is a percentage game and you have to play the percentages - and that means having a system which causes the least inconvenience to the majority of people while being most likely to catch or deter those who are likely to carry out attacks.
The crucial word there is "deter". If those who are most likely to try and blow themselves up on an aeroplane know that they are the most likely to be stopped, searched, questioned and probed to a far higher degree than Granny Smith they will be less inclined to try in the first place. Yes, it will be unfair on those Moslems who really are innocently going about their business, but that's the price you pay for having a significant proportion of your "religion" hell bent on random mass murder. If they don't like it they could try doing something to reduce that murderous element.
There is another benefit to racial profiling terrorists too. One of the biggest problems for the intelligence services is that they find it very hard to get inside these terrorist organisations as they tend to recruit mostly from a certain racial group. If racial profiling is introduced at airport security they will possibly resort to recruiting more white men and women - which would give the security services the opportunity to infiltrate these organisations and stop attacks before they develop.
Racial profiling would not prevent every attack, but it would do more to reduce the possibility than anything else. The security services have no problem using racial profiling to detect and deter football hooligans or neo-Nazi sympathisers - and it has been very effective - why are they so reluctant to use it to detect and deter Moslem terrorists?
Saturday, January 09, 2010
The proper response
I understand that the Somali pirates who captured a British couple are threatening to kill them.
The proper response of the British government should be to demand their immediate release and tell the pirates that were they to kill them or harm them in any way then the British will consider it an act of war, bomb the crap out of their shit hole towns and the Royal Navy will blockade their crappy little ports and destroy anything that tries to leave them.
At least, that would have been our response back in the days of Don Pacifico.
The proper response of the British government should be to demand their immediate release and tell the pirates that were they to kill them or harm them in any way then the British will consider it an act of war, bomb the crap out of their shit hole towns and the Royal Navy will blockade their crappy little ports and destroy anything that tries to leave them.
At least, that would have been our response back in the days of Don Pacifico.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Provocative spite
I don't believe that the rumoured march by Moslem extremists through Wootton Bassett was ever anything more than a spiteful provocation by the group who are alleged to be planning it, but I'm also pretty sure that the man who floated the idea was not expecting the sort of backlash it has brought.
I'm sure he realised it would cause controversy - that was the whole idea - but I think he underestimated the depth of feeling that this would stir up in the British people. The British are famously tolerant, but there have always been limits to it and if you try and rub our noses in the dirt you can usually be sure that the response of the British people will be robust to say the least.
However, I'm not so sure about the British establishment these days - particularly the new "Supreme Court" - and I suspect that the organiser of this march - a man trained in law - will, if needs be, take this to the highest authority claiming that any attempt to prevent this march will be a breach of his "human rights" and I suspect that if he does, those judges will find in his favour.
However, if they do get the go ahead it would represent the perfect opportunity for all those "moderate" Moslems we hear so much about (but rarely see any evidence of) to make their stand. The march, if allowed, will feature 500 protesters marching through Wooton Basssett. Wouldn't it be nice if they were met by a cordon of 5000 Moslem protesters who refuse to allow them to pass?
Will that happen? Somehow I doubt it.
I'm sure he realised it would cause controversy - that was the whole idea - but I think he underestimated the depth of feeling that this would stir up in the British people. The British are famously tolerant, but there have always been limits to it and if you try and rub our noses in the dirt you can usually be sure that the response of the British people will be robust to say the least.
However, I'm not so sure about the British establishment these days - particularly the new "Supreme Court" - and I suspect that the organiser of this march - a man trained in law - will, if needs be, take this to the highest authority claiming that any attempt to prevent this march will be a breach of his "human rights" and I suspect that if he does, those judges will find in his favour.
However, if they do get the go ahead it would represent the perfect opportunity for all those "moderate" Moslems we hear so much about (but rarely see any evidence of) to make their stand. The march, if allowed, will feature 500 protesters marching through Wooton Basssett. Wouldn't it be nice if they were met by a cordon of 5000 Moslem protesters who refuse to allow them to pass?
Will that happen? Somehow I doubt it.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
A failure of leadership
So our esteemed leader has ordered an immediate review of airport security following on in the wake of the pants bomber. The result of this "review" will be yet more security checks, yet more inconvenience for all air travellers and yet more laws to eat away at our rapidly receding liberty.
And for what? Because as sure as night follows day, whatever system you impose the terrorists will find a way to circumnavigate it before you can say "chip and pin". When are we going to wake up to this?
Unfortunately, our leaders will never wake up to the problem because they refuse to acknowledge what the problem is. The problem is Islam - but they will never ever admit it, so they'll never do anything about it.
So we'll keep subjecting your little old Granny Smith to full body searches even though we know damn well that little old Granny Smith isn't likely to try and blow the plane up. We will do this because our leaders bow down to the twin gods of secular progressivism - equality and diversity.
If you have a cancer you want it cut out. You want a cure that will target the cancer and either destroy it or neutralise it. How would we feel about a "cure" that, rather than attacking the cancer cells attacked all cells in the hope that by doing so it will kill the cancer? Not very good - especially if you knew that there was a cure that actively targeted the cancer itself, but the doctors refused to use it!
Right now, the body of western civilisation has a minor infection in its little finger. The doctors - our leaders - are fighting this infection by concentrating on every part of the body apart from the little finger. Don't worry - the body might die, but they are going to do their best to save the little finger.
And for what? Because as sure as night follows day, whatever system you impose the terrorists will find a way to circumnavigate it before you can say "chip and pin". When are we going to wake up to this?
Unfortunately, our leaders will never wake up to the problem because they refuse to acknowledge what the problem is. The problem is Islam - but they will never ever admit it, so they'll never do anything about it.
So we'll keep subjecting your little old Granny Smith to full body searches even though we know damn well that little old Granny Smith isn't likely to try and blow the plane up. We will do this because our leaders bow down to the twin gods of secular progressivism - equality and diversity.
If you have a cancer you want it cut out. You want a cure that will target the cancer and either destroy it or neutralise it. How would we feel about a "cure" that, rather than attacking the cancer cells attacked all cells in the hope that by doing so it will kill the cancer? Not very good - especially if you knew that there was a cure that actively targeted the cancer itself, but the doctors refused to use it!
Right now, the body of western civilisation has a minor infection in its little finger. The doctors - our leaders - are fighting this infection by concentrating on every part of the body apart from the little finger. Don't worry - the body might die, but they are going to do their best to save the little finger.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Progress
How come we were more effective at dealing with pirates 200 years ago than we are now?
I mean, we have ships, helicopters and aircraft with high powered radar that can spot a bottle top floating on the sea from a distance of 15 billion miles away, but for some reason we can't stop a rag tag bunch of sailors armed with nothing more than a rickety speed boat, a few AK47s and an RPG from stopping and capturing enormous floating warehouses as easily as they can capture a pleasure yacht.
Come on! Why aren't they stopping this? I don't think it is lack of technology or ships - it is the lack of will. Two hundred years ago they would have stopped the suspicious vessel with a shot across the bows - and if it failed to stop they'd sink it.
Now they are too tied up with red tape to do this. They can't do anything unless they have "reason" to do so - i.e. they actually see the bastards firing their machine guns at someone. They should be doing what they did 200 years ago - and with the technology at their disposal it should be easy to do. Spot a suspicious blip on the radar - send a helicopter armed to the teeth out to check it out - and if the suspicious blip fails to stop - sink it!
Why are we so pathetic today? If this is progress you can shove it.
I mean, we have ships, helicopters and aircraft with high powered radar that can spot a bottle top floating on the sea from a distance of 15 billion miles away, but for some reason we can't stop a rag tag bunch of sailors armed with nothing more than a rickety speed boat, a few AK47s and an RPG from stopping and capturing enormous floating warehouses as easily as they can capture a pleasure yacht.
Come on! Why aren't they stopping this? I don't think it is lack of technology or ships - it is the lack of will. Two hundred years ago they would have stopped the suspicious vessel with a shot across the bows - and if it failed to stop they'd sink it.
Now they are too tied up with red tape to do this. They can't do anything unless they have "reason" to do so - i.e. they actually see the bastards firing their machine guns at someone. They should be doing what they did 200 years ago - and with the technology at their disposal it should be easy to do. Spot a suspicious blip on the radar - send a helicopter armed to the teeth out to check it out - and if the suspicious blip fails to stop - sink it!
Why are we so pathetic today? If this is progress you can shove it.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Flight of fancy
There's an advert running on television at the moment that attempts to glamorise air travel as it depicts a bevy of beautiful air hostesses wandering through an airport terminal along with a handsome captain.
The advert is, I think, mimicking the scene from the film "Catch Me If You Can" where Leonardo Di Caprio strides through a similar airport terminal dressed as a pilot accompanied by beautiful Pan Am stewardesses. The advert fails - in my opinion - for two reasons. Firstly, the women in the advert - although beautiful - look like models rather than genuine air hostesses, which makes the whole thing look fake right from the start.
The other problem with it is that I remember what air travel was like in the eighties and it was nothing like that. The scene it attempts to copy was set in the 1960's when air travel really was glamorous and before the blight of terrorism affected it for ever. By the mid eighties - when the advert is set - not only did airport security already mean that you had to arrive at the terminal well before your flight was set to depart, but that you had to endure searches and queues that would try the patience of a saint even then.
But that was nothing to what it must be like today. I don't fly any more for that reason. It's not that I don't like flying - I don't mind it in the least (although it is rather boring) - but I despise being herded around like cattle and treated like an inconvenience rather than a paying customer.
The days of air travel being glamorous are long gone - unless, perhaps, you are one of the fortunate few with enough money to circumvent the cattle herding, but even then you will most likely have to experience at least a little of that when you arrive at your destination. The question is, can we ever get it back?
I seriously doubt it. I seriously doubt whether most people would even want to go back to the days of the "jet set" as it smacks of the elitism which we are programmed to despise these days, but I'm sure most people would prefer it if we could get some common sense back into airport security. I think most of you could guess what that means, but just in case you can not - it means targeting certain people of a certain appearance.
Of course, we can not do that these days as it would be decried as "racist" rather than common sense, but one can always hope. Until we do get some common sense back into airport security yours truly will continue to avoid flying.
The advert is, I think, mimicking the scene from the film "Catch Me If You Can" where Leonardo Di Caprio strides through a similar airport terminal dressed as a pilot accompanied by beautiful Pan Am stewardesses. The advert fails - in my opinion - for two reasons. Firstly, the women in the advert - although beautiful - look like models rather than genuine air hostesses, which makes the whole thing look fake right from the start.
The other problem with it is that I remember what air travel was like in the eighties and it was nothing like that. The scene it attempts to copy was set in the 1960's when air travel really was glamorous and before the blight of terrorism affected it for ever. By the mid eighties - when the advert is set - not only did airport security already mean that you had to arrive at the terminal well before your flight was set to depart, but that you had to endure searches and queues that would try the patience of a saint even then.
But that was nothing to what it must be like today. I don't fly any more for that reason. It's not that I don't like flying - I don't mind it in the least (although it is rather boring) - but I despise being herded around like cattle and treated like an inconvenience rather than a paying customer.
The days of air travel being glamorous are long gone - unless, perhaps, you are one of the fortunate few with enough money to circumvent the cattle herding, but even then you will most likely have to experience at least a little of that when you arrive at your destination. The question is, can we ever get it back?
I seriously doubt it. I seriously doubt whether most people would even want to go back to the days of the "jet set" as it smacks of the elitism which we are programmed to despise these days, but I'm sure most people would prefer it if we could get some common sense back into airport security. I think most of you could guess what that means, but just in case you can not - it means targeting certain people of a certain appearance.
Of course, we can not do that these days as it would be decried as "racist" rather than common sense, but one can always hope. Until we do get some common sense back into airport security yours truly will continue to avoid flying.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Compassion? Sure - unless you're a victim of crime
The decision of the Scottish justice minister to release the Lockerbie murderer on "compassionate" grounds is a strange one. During his long winded, excuse riddled speech Kenny Macaskill* referred frequently to "humanity" and "compassion" being involved in his decision.
But not once did he show any humanity or compassion towards the victims of the murdering bastard. If he had an ounce of true compassion he would have realised that releasing this terrorist scum to live out his dying days among his family would cause huge upset to the families of the real victims.
The filthy Libyan terrorist is a victim of a horrible disease. That's bad luck, but not entirely undeserved, but it is not enough to justify releasing him from prison. Those who died at his hands were victims of a cold blooded calculating murderer and they deserve far more compassion and far more consideration than a terrorist.
Such a shame that Macaskill felt the need to demonstrate his fake "humanity" towards a convicted terrorist rather than the grieving families of the real victims.
* Am I the only one who finds an adult using a rather childish version of their name a little bit creepy? Kenneth or Ken would be fine - but Kenny ..... grow up sunshine.
But not once did he show any humanity or compassion towards the victims of the murdering bastard. If he had an ounce of true compassion he would have realised that releasing this terrorist scum to live out his dying days among his family would cause huge upset to the families of the real victims.
The filthy Libyan terrorist is a victim of a horrible disease. That's bad luck, but not entirely undeserved, but it is not enough to justify releasing him from prison. Those who died at his hands were victims of a cold blooded calculating murderer and they deserve far more compassion and far more consideration than a terrorist.
Such a shame that Macaskill felt the need to demonstrate his fake "humanity" towards a convicted terrorist rather than the grieving families of the real victims.
* Am I the only one who finds an adult using a rather childish version of their name a little bit creepy? Kenneth or Ken would be fine - but Kenny ..... grow up sunshine.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Are we opening the door to extremists?
Alice Miles thinks that denial is going to open the door to the "extremists" of the BNP.
.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.
Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.
That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.
That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.
When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.
It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.
.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.
Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.
That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.
That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.
When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.
It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Any excuse
As if they ever needed one?
The Gaza conflict has caused fury among British Muslims and could provoke extremism in this country, Muslim leaders have warned Gordon Brown.
Who'd have thought that? Personally, I don't think Moslems need much of a reason for getting all uppity - seeing how they've been behaving that way for 1300 years or so - but you can always rely on Moslem "leaders" to make the most of any grievance; real or imagined. The fact that they get plenty of encouragement to do so from the liberal left media probably has a lot to do with it.
Of course, any sensible Prime Minister would turn around to these so-called "leaders" and tell them that this is a dispute between Israel and Gazan Palestinians and nothing to do with Britain whatsoever. We don't supply arms to either side - but we do provide funding to Hamas through the EU and UN and various other agencies so why the fuck are these Moslems getting upset with us?
Of course it is all bullshit. Just another excuse to make more demands and extract more concessions from a lily-livered government who don't have the stomach to confront these extremists and their ideology. We should tell these leaders to go back to their people and tell them this ....
If there is any terrorist attack by Moslems in Britain then we will close down every mosque, Islamic school and Moslem shop that those terrorists have been known to frequent. We will impose restrictions on travel to and from Islamic nations known to harbour terrorists and we will deport anyone associated with terrorism.
That would do for starters.
The Gaza conflict has caused fury among British Muslims and could provoke extremism in this country, Muslim leaders have warned Gordon Brown.
Who'd have thought that? Personally, I don't think Moslems need much of a reason for getting all uppity - seeing how they've been behaving that way for 1300 years or so - but you can always rely on Moslem "leaders" to make the most of any grievance; real or imagined. The fact that they get plenty of encouragement to do so from the liberal left media probably has a lot to do with it.
Of course, any sensible Prime Minister would turn around to these so-called "leaders" and tell them that this is a dispute between Israel and Gazan Palestinians and nothing to do with Britain whatsoever. We don't supply arms to either side - but we do provide funding to Hamas through the EU and UN and various other agencies so why the fuck are these Moslems getting upset with us?
Of course it is all bullshit. Just another excuse to make more demands and extract more concessions from a lily-livered government who don't have the stomach to confront these extremists and their ideology. We should tell these leaders to go back to their people and tell them this ....
If there is any terrorist attack by Moslems in Britain then we will close down every mosque, Islamic school and Moslem shop that those terrorists have been known to frequent. We will impose restrictions on travel to and from Islamic nations known to harbour terrorists and we will deport anyone associated with terrorism.
That would do for starters.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Friends like these ....
...... animals could do without!
Seven animals rights activists have been convicted of a "violent and relentless" campaign of blackmail against a laboratory's suppliers in which they branded directors "paedophiles" and attacked their families.
I've never had a problem with people protesting peacefully and legally about any issue, but animal "rights" groups have been using the tactic of "direct action" for years without the courts doing anything about it. The result of that laxity is this bunch of foul scum subjecting decent ordinary people to horrendous abuse and fear.
So I hope that the courts make an example of them all and sentence them to very long prison sentences - as they carried out their campaign of hate over six years I would think that the minimum they should be expected to serve would be six years as well (which would require a sentence of between 12 and 15 years thanks to our ludicrous early release system). They won't of course, but it's the only thing that might work.
In my opinion far too many people are over-sentimental about animals and their "rights". I know it's not a popular viewpoint, but I believe animals rights are defined by the laws of nature (i.e. - none), but the humanisation of animals over the last 60-80 years has created this sickly sentimentality.
The irony of all this is that these people who supposedly support animals "rights" are the ones causing more problems for animals. Once upon a time we had a decent and comparatively humane fur industry in this country, but "direct action" closed that down and drove the industry to foreign countries where they are far less concerned about animal rights and considerably less worried about their welfare.
Seven animals rights activists have been convicted of a "violent and relentless" campaign of blackmail against a laboratory's suppliers in which they branded directors "paedophiles" and attacked their families.
I've never had a problem with people protesting peacefully and legally about any issue, but animal "rights" groups have been using the tactic of "direct action" for years without the courts doing anything about it. The result of that laxity is this bunch of foul scum subjecting decent ordinary people to horrendous abuse and fear.
So I hope that the courts make an example of them all and sentence them to very long prison sentences - as they carried out their campaign of hate over six years I would think that the minimum they should be expected to serve would be six years as well (which would require a sentence of between 12 and 15 years thanks to our ludicrous early release system). They won't of course, but it's the only thing that might work.
In my opinion far too many people are over-sentimental about animals and their "rights". I know it's not a popular viewpoint, but I believe animals rights are defined by the laws of nature (i.e. - none), but the humanisation of animals over the last 60-80 years has created this sickly sentimentality.
The irony of all this is that these people who supposedly support animals "rights" are the ones causing more problems for animals. Once upon a time we had a decent and comparatively humane fur industry in this country, but "direct action" closed that down and drove the industry to foreign countries where they are far less concerned about animal rights and considerably less worried about their welfare.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Suspect reporting
Charles Lipson, among others, has noticed something which, I have to admit, slipped by me during the course of the Bombay terrorist siege.
The Daily Mail's picture is a frontal photograph. The terrorist is gripping the assault rifle with two hands, one of which is on the trigger. The rifle is pointed horizontally, toward anyone walking near the gunman. The newspaper ran this anodyne caption: "A suspected gunman walks outside the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus in Mumbai on Wednesday night"
As Lipson points out, the caption is absurd. There is no suspicion that this was a gunman - that was obvious - but such is our craven fear of upsetting the sensibilities of God knows who and such is our deference to the belief that we have to treat terrorists as criminals rather than the illegal war combatants they actually are that our news outlets just can not bring themselves to say it.
Once upon a time that Mail caption would have been something like "One of the murderous Moslem terrorists responsible for the Bombay bloodbath". Now they can only call him a "suspected gunman" who "walks outside". What do they think might have happened? Do they think he was just out for an afternoon stroll and mistook an automatic rifle for an umbrella? "Sorry officer, my wife will insist on leaving the AK47 in the umbrella stand by the front door".
Lipson wonders how they would have captioned photographs from WW2 is we had news reporting then as we do now. Worse still - what if we responded to the threat from Nazi Germany the way we do to Moslem terrorism.
"Control, this is Chain Home - we have fifty plus suspected bandits heading for London. Advise please"
"Roger that, Chain Home.We will consult with lawyers and try to get an injunction to prevent them dropping their bombs within fifty miles of the city. We'll have an answer for you in a month or two. In the meantime do not do anything to offend them. Remember, they haven't actually committed any crime yet".
The Daily Mail's picture is a frontal photograph. The terrorist is gripping the assault rifle with two hands, one of which is on the trigger. The rifle is pointed horizontally, toward anyone walking near the gunman. The newspaper ran this anodyne caption: "A suspected gunman walks outside the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus in Mumbai on Wednesday night"
As Lipson points out, the caption is absurd. There is no suspicion that this was a gunman - that was obvious - but such is our craven fear of upsetting the sensibilities of God knows who and such is our deference to the belief that we have to treat terrorists as criminals rather than the illegal war combatants they actually are that our news outlets just can not bring themselves to say it.
Once upon a time that Mail caption would have been something like "One of the murderous Moslem terrorists responsible for the Bombay bloodbath". Now they can only call him a "suspected gunman" who "walks outside". What do they think might have happened? Do they think he was just out for an afternoon stroll and mistook an automatic rifle for an umbrella? "Sorry officer, my wife will insist on leaving the AK47 in the umbrella stand by the front door".
Lipson wonders how they would have captioned photographs from WW2 is we had news reporting then as we do now. Worse still - what if we responded to the threat from Nazi Germany the way we do to Moslem terrorism.
"Control, this is Chain Home - we have fifty plus suspected bandits heading for London. Advise please"
"Roger that, Chain Home.We will consult with lawyers and try to get an injunction to prevent them dropping their bombs within fifty miles of the city. We'll have an answer for you in a month or two. In the meantime do not do anything to offend them. Remember, they haven't actually committed any crime yet".
Slow dawning realisation
From David Aaronovitch on The Times Online.
The rabbi, in death, tells us this. There isn't anything - whatever the explanatists say - we can concede to the zealots of Faridkot that will persuade such people, once radicalised, not to try to kill us.
OK, he qualifies it be saying "once radicalised", but he's starting to get the point. The point being that it is not the west's treatment of Moslems or Moslem lands that piss them off, it is the fact that the west exists at all.
Crucially he sees that concessions will do nothing to moderate their beliefs. You can not bargain with them, you can not compromise with them and in the absence of any effective method of detecting who is and isn't "radicalised" making it easier for them to spread their ideology is clearly a stupid thing to do.
The rabbi, in death, tells us this. There isn't anything - whatever the explanatists say - we can concede to the zealots of Faridkot that will persuade such people, once radicalised, not to try to kill us.
OK, he qualifies it be saying "once radicalised", but he's starting to get the point. The point being that it is not the west's treatment of Moslems or Moslem lands that piss them off, it is the fact that the west exists at all.
Crucially he sees that concessions will do nothing to moderate their beliefs. You can not bargain with them, you can not compromise with them and in the absence of any effective method of detecting who is and isn't "radicalised" making it easier for them to spread their ideology is clearly a stupid thing to do.
Monday, December 01, 2008
An enemy we refuse to identify
On The Times Online comment section, Bronwen Maddox suggests that the Bombay atrocities must not allow us to lose sight of who the real enemy is - and then goes to great lengths to avoid mentioning who the real enemy is.
Maddox attempts to define the enemy as "terrorism", but terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. It's like suggesting that, in 1940, our enemy was aerial bombardment, not Germany and that, having come through the Blitz that would have been sufficient to defeat our enemy. It wasn't. What defeated the enemy was correctly identifying it and doing all we could to destroy it.
We could not have won either if we had narrowed down our enemy to just Nazis. Of course Nazism was the root of our enemy, but we could not have restricted our operations to just defeating Nazis. It had to be the total defeat of both the ideology and the infrastructure that supported it - which meant identifying our enemy not just as Nazism but Germany as a whole.
It was only after Germany had been defeated that we could allow ourselves the luxury of differentiating between those Germans who supported Nazism and those that didn't - and even then that was no simple task.
Maddox is right to say that the enemy is not Pakistan - although Pakistan and India have long standing disputes related to the traditional reason for war (territory). Indeed, with a couple of obvious exceptions, the enemy is not a national entity at all in the accepted sense, but a transnational enemy that exists in every corner of the globe and every strata of society.
She is very wrong to describe the enemy as terrorism, though.
The enemy is Islam.
Not "militant Islam" or any other term you wish to use to try and differentiate between those that actively wage war on us and those that just do nothing. Because Islam is an enemy which is not restricted by any national identity we have to recognise the strategies and tactics that is employs against us.
Terrorism is a tactic.
The strategies for deploying the tactic of terrorism are transnationalism and multiculturalism.
The defence against such strategies are nationalism and monoculturalism. Until we recognise that porous borders, immigration, transnational and international "rights" and "laws" that take prominence over national freedoms and law are the very things that allow terrorism to flourish then we are likely to continue to suffer more and more atrocities like Bombay, Madrid, 7/7 and 9/11.
Ultimately, we will lose.
Maddox attempts to define the enemy as "terrorism", but terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. It's like suggesting that, in 1940, our enemy was aerial bombardment, not Germany and that, having come through the Blitz that would have been sufficient to defeat our enemy. It wasn't. What defeated the enemy was correctly identifying it and doing all we could to destroy it.
We could not have won either if we had narrowed down our enemy to just Nazis. Of course Nazism was the root of our enemy, but we could not have restricted our operations to just defeating Nazis. It had to be the total defeat of both the ideology and the infrastructure that supported it - which meant identifying our enemy not just as Nazism but Germany as a whole.
It was only after Germany had been defeated that we could allow ourselves the luxury of differentiating between those Germans who supported Nazism and those that didn't - and even then that was no simple task.
Maddox is right to say that the enemy is not Pakistan - although Pakistan and India have long standing disputes related to the traditional reason for war (territory). Indeed, with a couple of obvious exceptions, the enemy is not a national entity at all in the accepted sense, but a transnational enemy that exists in every corner of the globe and every strata of society.
She is very wrong to describe the enemy as terrorism, though.
The enemy is Islam.
Not "militant Islam" or any other term you wish to use to try and differentiate between those that actively wage war on us and those that just do nothing. Because Islam is an enemy which is not restricted by any national identity we have to recognise the strategies and tactics that is employs against us.
Terrorism is a tactic.
The strategies for deploying the tactic of terrorism are transnationalism and multiculturalism.
The defence against such strategies are nationalism and monoculturalism. Until we recognise that porous borders, immigration, transnational and international "rights" and "laws" that take prominence over national freedoms and law are the very things that allow terrorism to flourish then we are likely to continue to suffer more and more atrocities like Bombay, Madrid, 7/7 and 9/11.
Ultimately, we will lose.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Lost momentum
As anyone who reads this blog regularly will know, I am a supporter of our armed forces. That might seem obvious - aren't we all. Well - no, not really. A lot of people, especially politicians, will say that they support our armed forces, but they don't really. If they truly did they would ensure that they are armed, equipped and supplied as well as they possibly can be - but they'd rather spend billions on a sporting event then national defence.
I was also a supporter of our action in both Afghanistan and Iraq - but I've always had my doubts about the idea of nation building. My view was that taking military action post 9/11 was the right thing to do, but the way we did it was very wrong - and I don't believe it was a strategy that military leaders came up with or even endorsed. I believe we should have gone in hard and fast, deposed the regimes that were there, disabled the bulk of their military capability and then withdrawn just as quickly - leaving those nations with no doubt that should anything emanating from that region ever threaten our nation again we'd do the same.
I agree that there is some value to remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan - it gives us a battleground to fight Moslem terrorists well away from our own shores and our troops are becoming battle hardened veterans through contact with real action - but other than that it is pretty pointless us being there. The belief that we will create some sort of western style liberal democracy in the region is misguided - it won't. Both Iraq and Afghanistan - should they ever become stable enough for us to pull out - will rapidly descend into a despot ruled hell hole once we leave.
It would never be enough to make one or even two nations in that region even semi-democratic as long as they remain surrounded by the autocratic dictatorships and theocracies which dominate the region - and this is where I feel we have missed an opportunity following the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As soon as we began these adventures the shock waves were felt throughout the Middle East. Previously belligerent nations - Libya and Syria for example - quickly made moves to placate the west and the people of Lebanon rose up against their own oppressors (Syria) and demanded they leave - but by hanging around and "nation building" that momentum was lost and with it the possibility of real progress in the region.
The "Cedar Revolution" of 2005 quickly evaporated and instead of improving prospects for that nation they were launched instead into the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war as Islamic insurgents, buoyed by the various "victories" in Iraq and armed by the Iranians, displayed their new found confidence.
This may sound callous, but I do not care about the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. If they want better lives it is their responsibility to do something about it other than flood into our country from their piss pot nations. Our only consideration for those nations should be how they effect our own - and they should have learned from a short, sharp but very resounding military action that if they try and mess with us they will pay for it very dearly. Again and again - until they stop.
I was also a supporter of our action in both Afghanistan and Iraq - but I've always had my doubts about the idea of nation building. My view was that taking military action post 9/11 was the right thing to do, but the way we did it was very wrong - and I don't believe it was a strategy that military leaders came up with or even endorsed. I believe we should have gone in hard and fast, deposed the regimes that were there, disabled the bulk of their military capability and then withdrawn just as quickly - leaving those nations with no doubt that should anything emanating from that region ever threaten our nation again we'd do the same.
I agree that there is some value to remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan - it gives us a battleground to fight Moslem terrorists well away from our own shores and our troops are becoming battle hardened veterans through contact with real action - but other than that it is pretty pointless us being there. The belief that we will create some sort of western style liberal democracy in the region is misguided - it won't. Both Iraq and Afghanistan - should they ever become stable enough for us to pull out - will rapidly descend into a despot ruled hell hole once we leave.
It would never be enough to make one or even two nations in that region even semi-democratic as long as they remain surrounded by the autocratic dictatorships and theocracies which dominate the region - and this is where I feel we have missed an opportunity following the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As soon as we began these adventures the shock waves were felt throughout the Middle East. Previously belligerent nations - Libya and Syria for example - quickly made moves to placate the west and the people of Lebanon rose up against their own oppressors (Syria) and demanded they leave - but by hanging around and "nation building" that momentum was lost and with it the possibility of real progress in the region.
The "Cedar Revolution" of 2005 quickly evaporated and instead of improving prospects for that nation they were launched instead into the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war as Islamic insurgents, buoyed by the various "victories" in Iraq and armed by the Iranians, displayed their new found confidence.
This may sound callous, but I do not care about the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. If they want better lives it is their responsibility to do something about it other than flood into our country from their piss pot nations. Our only consideration for those nations should be how they effect our own - and they should have learned from a short, sharp but very resounding military action that if they try and mess with us they will pay for it very dearly. Again and again - until they stop.
30 years to win war on terror
That's what Britain's security minister claimed.
He added that no matter how much work the Government puts into improving Britain's ability to detect and thwart terrorist plots, the threat will only be overcome by persuading Muslims not to engage in violence.
You got to admire his optimism.
Personally, I think it's going to take much longer than 30 years - after all, we've failed to persuade them in the previous 1300 years. Lord West need not worry about his prediction, though - apart from the fact he'll probably be dead by then, Britain will either be an Islamic Republic or fighting a long and protracted war of independence against a predominantly Moslem "EU" in thirty years time.
He added that no matter how much work the Government puts into improving Britain's ability to detect and thwart terrorist plots, the threat will only be overcome by persuading Muslims not to engage in violence.
You got to admire his optimism.
Personally, I think it's going to take much longer than 30 years - after all, we've failed to persuade them in the previous 1300 years. Lord West need not worry about his prediction, though - apart from the fact he'll probably be dead by then, Britain will either be an Islamic Republic or fighting a long and protracted war of independence against a predominantly Moslem "EU" in thirty years time.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The missing link?
Police are investigating apparent links between terrorism and a liking for child porn.
A link between terrorism plots and hardcore child pornography is becoming clear after a string of police raids in Britain and across the Continent, an investigation by The Times has discovered. Images of child abuse have been found during Scotland Yard antiterrorism swoops and in big inquiries in Italy and Spain.
It seems they are not sure whether the jihadis do this because they like child porn or as a way of "hiding secret messages" - though the latter seems like an odd thing to do to me. If you wanted to avoid suspicion and investigation by the police why on earth would you use a child porn site?
British security sources confirmed that such a link had been discovered in several cases. They noted the contradiction between people supposedly devoted to theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism and their use of child pornography. “It shows that these people are very confused,” a source said.
No shit. Who'd have thought that people intent on committing mass murder wouldn't be perfectly balanced individuals. Thank God we have people like this "source" protecting us. We can sleep soundly knowing that the brightest sparks are looking after us. The same source also came up with this gem of a comment.
Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff.
I'm not sure that kiddie fiddling is exclusively decadence of Western origin - in fact, don't these people follow a prophet who had a 9 year old wife? Of course they bloody enjoy it! Not to be outdone in the brightness stakes, the Tory push their own spokeswoman to the fore.
Baroness Neville-Jones, Conservative security spokeswoman and former chairwoman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: “The information about a possible link between extremism and child pornography potentially provides useful insight into three things: the methods that extremists use to communicate; the methods they use to target vulnerable people in society; and the techniques they seek to use to conceal their online activities.”
What about number 4 - that these people may be sick, twisted weirdos? How's this for the clincher.
The key case that tipped off the security services to a plausible link involved the “Whitechapel Rapist”, Abdul Makim Khalisadar.
Women hating, kiddy fiddlers? Who'd have thought it.
A link between terrorism plots and hardcore child pornography is becoming clear after a string of police raids in Britain and across the Continent, an investigation by The Times has discovered. Images of child abuse have been found during Scotland Yard antiterrorism swoops and in big inquiries in Italy and Spain.
It seems they are not sure whether the jihadis do this because they like child porn or as a way of "hiding secret messages" - though the latter seems like an odd thing to do to me. If you wanted to avoid suspicion and investigation by the police why on earth would you use a child porn site?
British security sources confirmed that such a link had been discovered in several cases. They noted the contradiction between people supposedly devoted to theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism and their use of child pornography. “It shows that these people are very confused,” a source said.
No shit. Who'd have thought that people intent on committing mass murder wouldn't be perfectly balanced individuals. Thank God we have people like this "source" protecting us. We can sleep soundly knowing that the brightest sparks are looking after us. The same source also came up with this gem of a comment.
Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff.
I'm not sure that kiddie fiddling is exclusively decadence of Western origin - in fact, don't these people follow a prophet who had a 9 year old wife? Of course they bloody enjoy it! Not to be outdone in the brightness stakes, the Tory push their own spokeswoman to the fore.
Baroness Neville-Jones, Conservative security spokeswoman and former chairwoman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: “The information about a possible link between extremism and child pornography potentially provides useful insight into three things: the methods that extremists use to communicate; the methods they use to target vulnerable people in society; and the techniques they seek to use to conceal their online activities.”
What about number 4 - that these people may be sick, twisted weirdos? How's this for the clincher.
The key case that tipped off the security services to a plausible link involved the “Whitechapel Rapist”, Abdul Makim Khalisadar.
Women hating, kiddy fiddlers? Who'd have thought it.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Burning for Islam
Yep, the followers of the Religion of Peace are at it again, this time trying to firebomb the home of a publisher for daring to publish a book about their beloved prophet's penchant for 9 year old girls.
Police moved in to arrest three men moments after a fire broke out at the London home and office of Martin Rynja in the early hours of Saturday.
The attack came days after Mr Rynja's company, Gibson Square, bought the rights to the book by the American writer Sherry Jones, which has already been likened to Sir Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.
As usual, the same old vitriol pours out from the usual suspects.
Hardline clerics said that further attacks would be "inevitable" if publication of the novel, The Jewel of Medina, goes ahead as planned next month.
Inevitable, eh? If it is "inevitable" that Islam leads to violence and terrorism against law abiding citizens, should it not be inevitable that followers of that religion face huge restrictions on their ability to practice their ideology?
Instead we give them more and more concessions - more mosques, more influence on local and central government policy, more preferential treatment. It really is time we had a government that was prepared to stand up to these bullying tactics and told people like Choudhary and other Moslem "community leaders" that they either get the followers of this "religion" to abide by the law of this country or their religion will face tough restrictions and the followers of this "religion" will be subject to severe restrictions on what they can do and where they can go.
I'm all for tolerance in Britain, but there are limits to what we should be expected to tolerate. In my view those limits were reached some years ago with the Salman Rushdie affair, but there have been considerably more outrages since then and still we refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem - or even that there is a problem.
We're always being told that there is nothing wrong with the RoP - it just needs to reform a little, but why would it reform when it is making progress in it's current form? Everywhere this ideology has gone it has brought violence, death, terrorism and hatred.
How much longer do we have to put up with it?
Police moved in to arrest three men moments after a fire broke out at the London home and office of Martin Rynja in the early hours of Saturday.
The attack came days after Mr Rynja's company, Gibson Square, bought the rights to the book by the American writer Sherry Jones, which has already been likened to Sir Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.
As usual, the same old vitriol pours out from the usual suspects.
Hardline clerics said that further attacks would be "inevitable" if publication of the novel, The Jewel of Medina, goes ahead as planned next month.
Inevitable, eh? If it is "inevitable" that Islam leads to violence and terrorism against law abiding citizens, should it not be inevitable that followers of that religion face huge restrictions on their ability to practice their ideology?
Instead we give them more and more concessions - more mosques, more influence on local and central government policy, more preferential treatment. It really is time we had a government that was prepared to stand up to these bullying tactics and told people like Choudhary and other Moslem "community leaders" that they either get the followers of this "religion" to abide by the law of this country or their religion will face tough restrictions and the followers of this "religion" will be subject to severe restrictions on what they can do and where they can go.
I'm all for tolerance in Britain, but there are limits to what we should be expected to tolerate. In my view those limits were reached some years ago with the Salman Rushdie affair, but there have been considerably more outrages since then and still we refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem - or even that there is a problem.
We're always being told that there is nothing wrong with the RoP - it just needs to reform a little, but why would it reform when it is making progress in it's current form? Everywhere this ideology has gone it has brought violence, death, terrorism and hatred.
How much longer do we have to put up with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)