Domestic & International Terrorism

OfficePants said:
The first 10 mins of Tucker Carlson should be watched.

I think the most relevant point made is this idea of "lone wolfs" being a myth. I agree. All these people are not radicalized in a bubble. They're raised in a community of lunatics, which now includes the apologists that hold up signs "muslims welcome".

This is why there are political revolutions happening everywhere. More Trump and less Trudeau.

Click to expand...


As Douglas Murray states the time and chance of a soft landing is running out. The soldiers are now on the streets in the UK, like France. My fear is an attack on the scale of Beslan in the UK, or somewhere else in western Europe. A time will come when the only response is ruthless force and killing as many terrorists and their extended cells as possible. That's a viable alternative if you can't deport/lock them up or even tag the losers.

The Katie Hopkins tweet has been seized upon and deliberately misinterpreted. If you read the original tweet, it is very clear there is no attempt to evoke the holocaust. However, I would agree that terminating the terrorists with extreme prejudice is a good idea. Including in planning stages of attacks. As early as possible.
 
Lord Buckley said:
The Katie Hopkins tweet has been seized upon and deliberately misinterpreted. If you read the original tweet, it is very clear there is no attempt to evoke the holocaust. However, I would agree that terminating the terrorists with extreme prejudice is a good idea. Including in planning stages of attacks. As early as possible.
Click to expand...

Seizing on that statement is ridiculous. It's a sign of a nation that hates itself.
 
OfficePants said:
In the regular Olympics, it doesn't matter who wins, your still a guy at home watching TV with the same exact life. Until some hijab gets on your bus and blows you legs off.
Click to expand...
You must be involved in some high stakes debates over the idiocy of various religions that that's an outcome.

Otherwise, it sounds like you are talking about policy debates focused on how dangerous a religion is. I don't conflate the two. I mean, LDS wins the crown for nonsense but it isn't dangerous. And violence has historically been a very effective tool, so being a violent entity isn't idiotic. Morality is another issue.
 
Monkeyface said:
Little kids are not apologists. You're an asshat and you know it, and if you don't then you should take a long hard look in the mirror.
Click to expand...
To be fair, he does seem to be a bit of a simpleton, so maybe looking in the mirror doesn't help. I do think you need to keep telling him.
 
InstaHate said:
You must be involved in some high stakes debates over the idiocy of various religions that that's an outcome.

Otherwise, it sounds like you are talking about policy debates focused on how dangerous a religion is. I don't conflate the two. I mean, LDS wins the crown for nonsense but it isn't dangerous. And violence has historically been a very effective tool, so being a violent entity isn't idiotic. Morality is another issue.
Click to expand...

This sub-topic requires Christopher Hitchens.
 
güero said:
To be fair, he does seem to be a bit of a simpleton, so maybe looking in the mirror doesn't help. I do think you need to keep telling him.
Click to expand...

What is this is babble? You have nothing to offer, so you resort to petty Antifa tactics. Did you write that with your bandana over your face?
 
InstaHate said:
You must be involved in some high stakes debates over the idiocy of various religions that that's an outcome.

Otherwise, it sounds like you are talking about policy debates focused on how dangerous a religion is. I don't conflate the two. I mean, LDS wins the crown for nonsense but it isn't dangerous. And violence has historically been a very effective tool, so being a violent entity isn't idiotic. Morality is another issue.
Click to expand...

Or you can cut to the chase: this particular deity has done particularly well for itself considering it's an obscure blood thirsty desert cult. An absolute disaster for mankind and the west.
 
OfficePants said:
This was spot on. The guy is absolutely right, German guilt is mainly responsible for this flood of immigration.
Click to expand...

And indeed, his conclusion is that Merkel was willing to crash the whole of the EU and the European project to satisfy her virtue signalling and ego needs. A shocking indictment of her, or perhaps, the German psyche? I hope not the latter.

His book is already a best seller and sold out practically everywhere.

Murray has taken the baton from Christopher Higgins and he is leading the charge. He's one of the few semi-mainstream journalists - he has a platform in the MSM - that I can respect and salute as a man of integrity and courage.
 
Lord Buckley said:
And indeed, his conclusion is that Merkel was willing to crash the whole of the EU and the European project to satisfy her virtue signalling and ego needs. A shocking indictment of her, or perhaps, the German psyche? I hope not the latter.

His book is already a best seller and sold out practically everywhere.

Murray has taken the baton from Christopher Higgins and he is leading the charge. He's one of the few semi-mainstream journalists - he has a platform in the MSM - that I can respect and salute as a man of integrity and courage.
Click to expand...

I think it's German psyche, she would have been stopped if it was not. The western world is, more and more, looking like a bunch of defeated people.
 
Manchester's getting lively

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
 
Lord Buckley said:
And indeed, his conclusion is that Merkel was willing to crash the whole of the EU and the European project to satisfy her virtue signalling and ego needs. A shocking indictment of her, or perhaps, the German psyche? I hope not the latter.

His book is already a best seller and sold out practically everywhere.

Murray has taken the baton from Christopher Higgins and he is leading the charge. He's one of the few semi-mainstream journalists - he has a platform in the MSM - that I can respect and salute as a man of integrity and courage.
Click to expand...

Do you mean Christopher Hitchens? I prefer the brother Peter Hitchens. He is just old school and calls out both parties on any bs.
 
Ariana Grande is now doing the rounds, talking about the attack.
And that is all I can find on that GMX website. The attack is no longer a headline!
BBC Radio 2 still playing stupid songs of love and understanding!
Oh, and the first ones who want a "state of emergency" have shown up. Plus about 4000 soldiers to support the police.
 
OfficePants said:
Manchester's getting lively

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Click to expand...

Can't get that to play. But I did tell you the real Mancunians are a tough bunch.

Kingstonian said:
Do you mean Christopher Hitchens? I prefer the brother Peter Hitchens. He is just old school and calls out both parties on any bs.
Click to expand...

His brother is good too, but coming from a different perspective as regards religion, but it is interesting how often Peter's conclusions now are near to Christopher's positions. Both are in agreement as to the end game of the present trajectory in Europe.

Scherensammler said:
One of the reasons Merkel does what she does:

COUDENHOVE-KALERGI-EUROPAPREIS FUER MERKEL
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the original Kalergi plan the Africans and those from the Middle East become more European. In this version our culture is supplanted and erased.

Kingstonian said:
In the UK a group called Common Purpose try to inculcate such ideas in future leaders - like the useless head of Londons police who got promoted despite getting jean charles de menezes shot and killed.
http://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose
Click to expand...

The police are absolutely riddled with them, as to the NHS and councils. It's a form of freemasonary for left wingers and fifth columnists. That's why it is good the army are on the streets, when the time comes, large portions of the police can be expected to act against the people.

They tried to bring Common Purpose in The Netherlands, it was sussed out as ideological filth straight away.
 
Lots of background stuff on the suicide bomber's family and acquaintances today, absolute north African camel turd. How any country could give succour to this degenerative in-bred scum is beyond me. But then again, one of the Lbyan suspects in the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher is currently in the UK on the refugee ticket.

It's a repeat of the Fall Of The Roman empire for the jet and digital age i.e. the fall looks like it's going to be accomplished in record time. Hopefully my daughters will have some safe place to go to.
 
Just intern all the suspects for a start. No point watching them. BBC moaning that we have not got resources for that anyway.

Then change the political language from the fatalistic acceptance crap we usually hear.

No chance of that with our useless politicians though. Need Victor Orban and similar running the show.
 
If they can't get their proverbial together to even tag them, then it's clear there isn't the will to deal with those who wish to kill and enslave the kaffur. It is my opinion, the mission of the Common Purpose muppets and the traitor class is to manage the handover to the enemy. They're working on the principle that demographics from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are a river blood that cannot be denied.
 
Mark Steyn nails it:

https://www.steynonline.com/7841/dangerous-woman-meets-dangerous-man

The pop star Ariana Grande has canceled the remaining dates of her "Dangerous Woman" tour following the murder of 22 fans (at the time of writing) and the injury of dozens more at her concert in Manchester. The Manchester Royal Infirmary reports that half the victims brought to the hospital overnight are children. The killer was a suicide bomber. Theresa May says the police believe they know his identity. The usual, predictable details will follow. [UPDATE: He's Salman Abedi, the Manchester-born son of Libyan refugees and another "known wolf".]

As The Independent's headline has it:

There's only one way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before.

That's not actually the "only" way Britain could respond, but it seems the way to bet, judging from the responses of the political class. "Carry on" is a very British expression. One thinks of the famous scene in one of the most famous of the Carry On comedies, Carry On Up The Khyber, surely the most insightful film ever made about Afghanistan: as you'll recall, the revolting Khasi of Khalabar grows ever more enraged at the British Governor's refusal to let the shelling and destruction of Government House disrupt his dinner party. Even when the Khasi has the main course replaced with the head of a decapitated fakir, Her Majesty's viceroy declines to let his eye be caught by these vulgar attention-seeking jihadists. The film received unenthusiastic reviews from London critics in 1968. One would not have predicted that half-a-century later it would be official British policy on the home front.

Easier said than done, alas. A couple of hours ago, as I write, the Arndale shopping center in Manchester was evacuated, somewhat chaotically, with hundreds of customers stampeding for the exits lest they be the cause of The Independent's next carry-on editorial. The Arndale was the scene of the city's last big terror attack - in 1996, when the IRA totaled it. Two hundred people were injured, but nobody died, and you don't have to be a terror apologist like Jeremy Corbyn to find the bad old days of Irish republicanism almost quaint by comparison. A few weeks ago the BBC reported that "approximately 850 people" from the United Kingdom have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for Isis and the like. That's more volunteers than the IRA were able to recruit in thirty years of the "Troubles", when MI5 estimated that they never had more than a hundred active terrorists out in the field. This time maybe it's the exotic appeal of foreign travel, as opposed to a month holed up in a barn in Newry.

Carrying on in Germany, Angela Merkel pronounced the attack "incomprehensible". But she can't be that uncomprehending, can she? Our declared enemies are perfectly straightforward in their stated goals, and their actions are consistent with their words. They select their targets with some care. For a while, it was Europe's Jews, at a Brussels museum and a Toulouse school and a Copenhagen synagogue and a Paris kosher supermarket. But Continentals are, except for political photo-ops on Holocaust Memorial Day, relatively heartless about dead Jews, and wrote off such incidents as something to do with "Israeli settlements" and "occupation" and of no broader significance.

So they moved on to slaughter 49 gays in a nightclub in Orlando - the biggest mound of gay corpses ever piled up in American history and the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11. But all the usual noisy LGBTQWERTY activists fell suddenly silent, as if they'd all gone back in the closet and curled up in the fetal position. And those Democrats who felt obliged to weigh in thought it was something to do with the need for gun control...

So they targeted provocative expressions of the infidel's abominable false religion, decapitating a French priest at Mass and mowing down pedestrians at a Berlin Christmas market. But post-Christian Europe takes Christianity less seriously than its enemies do, and so that too merited little more than a shrug and a pledge to carry on.

So they selected symbols of nationhood, like France's Bastille Day, Canada's Cenotaph, and the Mother of Parliaments in London. But taking seriously assaults on your own nation's symbols would require you to take your nation seriously, and most western citizens are disinclined to do so. As the great universal talismanic anthem of the age has it, "Imagine there's no countries/It's easy if you try..."

So the new Caliphate's believers figured out that what their enemy really likes is consumerism and pop music. Hence the attacks on the Champs-Élysées and the flagship Åhléns department store in Stockholm, and the bloodbath at the Eagles of Death Metal concert in Paris and now at Ariana Grande's "Dangerous Woman" tour.

In the decade since the Canadian Islamic Congress launched their "flagrant Islamophobia' lawsuits over my book, various comrades such as Ezra Levant and Douglas Murray have noted, correctly, that a principled commitment to free speech has always been a minority concern - and an even smaller minority with respect to free speech about Islam. As the most learned imam John Kerry put it with respect to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there was "a sort of particularised focus and perhaps even a legitimacy – not a legitimacy, but a rationale..." Those cartoonists, they were all wearing short skirts and asking for it.

Conversely, most other western citizens believe that, to invert Trotsky, if you're not interested in Islam, Islam won't be interested in you. Ariana Grande was eight at the time of 9/11, and most of her fans even younger. They have passed their entire sentient lives in the age of Islamic terror, yet somehow assume it's something compartmentalized and sealed off from them. "Dangerous Woman" is meant to be an attitude, nothing more - an edgy pose in a pop culture that lost any edge long ago; a great T-shirt, like the ones last night scavenged from the merchandising stands and used to bandage the wounded. It must come as a shock to realize there are those who take your ersatz provocations as the real thing, and are genuinely provoked by them.

"Carrying on exactly as before", as The Independent advises, will not be possible. A few months ago, I was in Toulouse, where Jewish life has vanished from public visibility and is conducted only behind the prison-like walls of a fortress schoolhouse and a centralized synagogue that requires 24/7 protection by French soldiers; I went to Amsterdam, which is markedly less gay than it used to be; I walked through Molenbeek after dark, where unaccompanied women dare not go. You can carry on, you can stagger on, but life is not exactly as it was before. Inch by inch, it's smaller and more constrained.

And so it will prove for cafe life, and shopping malls, and pop concerts. Maybe Ariana Grande will be back in the UK - or maybe she will decide that discretion is the better part of a Dangerous Woman's valor. But there will be fewer young girls in the audience - because no mum or dad wants to live for the rest of their lives with the great gaping hole in your heart opening up for dozens of English parents this grim morning. And one day the jihad will get lucky and the bomb will take with it one of these filthy infidel "shameless" pop whores cavorting on stage in her underwear. You can carry on exactly as before, but in a decade or two, just as there are fewer gay bars in Amsterdam and no more Jewish shops on the Chaussée de Gand, there will be less music in the air in western cities. Even the buskers, like the one in Manchester's Piccadilly Gardens today serenading a shattered city with "All You Need Is Love", will have moved on, having learned that it's a bit more complicated than that.

I am currently reading Douglas Murray's fine book, The Strange Death of Europe, which lays out, unsparingly, the central illusion of the last half-century - that you could demographically transform the composition of hitherto more or less homogeneous nation states on a scale no stable society has ever attempted, and that there would be no consequences except a more vibrant range of local restaurants. Mrs May declared this morning on the steps of Downing Street that she had held a top-level security meeting, or what they call in Britain a "COBRA", which sounds like something scary enough to do battle with SPECTRE; in that sense, it's a very butch acronym for a bit of bureaucratic furniture labeling (Cabinet Office Briefing Room A). But I'll bet the mood around the table was one of fatalism and resignation, outside a few micro-adjustments to the budget of counter-terrorism agencies and the number of CCTV cameras and the amount of security checks at "sensitive" "high-value" targets like department stores, and theatres, and restaurants and football grounds and pubs and chip shops and...

But the arithmetic is not difficult: Poland and Hungary and Slovakia do not have Islamic terrorism because they have very little Islam. France and Germany and Belgium admit more and more Islam, and thus more and more terrorism. Yet the subject of immigration has been all but entirely absent from the current UK election campaign. Thirty years ago, in the interests of stopping IRA terrorism, the British state was not above preventing the internal movement within its borders of unconvicted, uncharged, unarrested Republican sympathizers seeking to take a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool. Today it declares it can do nothing to prevent the movement of large numbers of the Muslim world from thousands of miles away to the heart of the United Kingdom. It's just a fact of life - like being blown up when you go to a pop concert.

All of us have gotten things wrong since 9/11. But few of us have gotten things as disastrously wrong as May and Merkel and Hollande and an entire generation of European political leaders who insist that remorseless incremental Islamization is both unstoppable and manageable. It is neither - and, for the sake of the dead of last night's carnage and for those of the next one, it is necessary to face that honestly. Theresa May's statement in Downing Street is said by my old friends at The Spectator to be "defiant", but what she is defying is not terrorism but reality. So too for all the exhausted accessories of defiance chic: candles, teddy bears, hashtags, the pitiful passive rote gestures that acknowledge atrocity without addressing it - like the Eloi in H G Wells' Time Machine, too evolved to resist the Morlocks.

As I asked around Europe all last year: What's the happy ending here? In a decade it will be worse, and in two decades worse still, and then in three decades people will barely recall how it used to be, when all that warmth and vibrancy of urban life that Owen Jones hymns in today's Guardian is but a memory, and the music has died away, and Manchester is as dull and listless as today's Alexandria. If Mrs May or Frau Merkel has a happier ending, I'd be interested to hear it. If not, it is necessary not to carry on, but to change, and soon - before it's too late.
 
Lord Buckley said:
Manchester so much to answer for:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4540660/How-16-jihadis-come-south-Manchester-suburbs.html What possibly could be the common denominator: urban deprivation? Reaction to Islamophobia? The awful damp climate? Being exposed to the music of Joy Division from an early age? Smoking spliff? Boddington's beer?

You can bet it won't be the the M word.
Click to expand...
At last someone has got it right. You should go back to blighty and stand for parliament.
 
This is how late the hour is in the UK and continental Europe, James Delingpole in The Spectator:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04...-all-muslims-are-sweet-smiley-and-integrated/

Our findings will shock many people,’ promised Trevor Phillips at the beginning of What British Muslims Really Think (Channel 4, Wednesday).

But the depressing thing is that I doubt they will, actually. I think the general British public have known for some time what Phillips’s documentary professed to find surprising: that large numbers of Muslims don’t want to integrate, that their views aren’t remotely enlightened, and that more than a few of them sympathise with terrorism. It’s only the establishment elite that has ever pretended otherwise.

As former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Phillips was very much part of that elite. He commissioned the 1997 Runnymede report that popularised the word ‘Islamophobia’. The fact that so impeccably liberal a figure is now issuing a mea culpa like this speaks volumes about how dire the situation has grown. ‘Everyone who has pinned their hopes on the rise of reforming and liberal British Muslim voices are in for a disappointment,’ said Phillips. ‘These voices are nowhere near as numerous as they need to be to make an impact.

Here are the stats to prove it: 52 per cent of Britain’s three million Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal; 39 per cent think a woman should always obey her husband; 18 per cent sympathise with people who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet; 4 per cent — that equates to about 100,000 Muslims — have ‘sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice’. Oh, and if any of them knew someone was involved in supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police. The other two million, then, would keep schtum.

Normally the PC response to these surveys is to shoot the messenger, as the BBC and the Guardian and the usual dhimmi apologists did last year, when the Sun revealed that one in four British Muslims sympathised with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo killers. They’ll find it harder this time, not just because Phillips is black and probably reads the Guardian, but also because the survey was so thorough. It was conducted, face to face, by people of the same religion. And when it came to the really tricky question — the one about terrorism — a blank envelope was provided for the answer, so that respondents felt freer to say what they really thought.

There wasn’t much to disagree with in this brave and honest programme, except for the odd momentary lapse, as when Phillips said, of Islamophobia, ‘I’ve no doubt that most of it emanates from sheer blind prejudice.’ I doubt even he believes that excuse any more. It was just a legacy of the kind of language all public figures were pretty much forced to use about the Religion of Peace till quite recently — Cameron showing the way with that disingenuous speech about ‘moderate and reforming voices who speak for the vast majority of Muslims’.

Of course we’d all like to believe that stuff, but the truth just doesn’t accord with the fantasy. Take those 85 Sharia councils currently violating one of the most basic principles of English justice — equality before the law. Yes, we can cosily delude ourselves that they just deal with civil issues — marriage mainly — that can safely be regulated by religion. But can they? A Zurich professor called Elham Manea, herself a Muslim, had attended these courts and found them promoting a version of Islam as extreme as that practised in her native Yemen or by the Taliban, where women were treated as ‘minors in perpetual need of male guardianship’. How exactly does that accord with the legislation and practice of a country where men and women are supposed to have guaranteed equality?

Our solution up until now has been a kind of national cognitive dissonance — one where we all agree to pretend that Muslims are sweet, smiley and integrated, like lovely Nadiya from Great British Bake Off and that her fellow Lutonians — the 7/7 suicide bombers — have, as the weasel phrase has it, ‘nothing to do with Islam’.

It’s not easy, though, and getting harder — as we saw on this week’s The Island with Bear Grylls (Channel 4, Mondays). I don’t doubt the producers were overjoyed when they managed to recruit their first Muslim castaway — Bradford body-builder Rizwan Shabir. But any hopes of a male Nadiya vanished this week when he quit, pleading an inability to cope with ‘living with women who are half-naked’.

Hmm. Seems to me that even before the men encountered the women, he was struggling to integrate — or indeed pull his weight — and that persuading himself he was being a good Muslim was the perfect way of ducking out of more hardship at no cost to his ego.

I’ll leave the last word on this yawning cultural chasm to Noshaba Hussain, middle-aged former headmistress of Springfield Primary, one of the Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham. A nine-year-old pupil had asked why she wasn’t wearing a headscarf, declaring, ‘Only slags don’t cover their heads.’ ‘This attitude is not acceptable in state schools in Britain,’ observed Ms Hussain. Well indeed. As Ray Honeyford was so maligned for telling us just 32 years ago.
 
Every teenager is a phone zombie but not one of thousands there took video of the bomb going off.
 
LelandJ said:
Every teenager is a phone zombie but not one of thousands there took video of the bomb going off.
Click to expand...

There was nothing to film. It was basically the exit area. No celebs. Plus after filming the entire concert (while screaming and jumping) the batteries will have been flat.



 
Rambo said:
And they weren't killed by cops either, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

People with guns and bombs are the only people that are going to stop terrorists. Not some fat British cop blowing a whistle.

You obviously believe that if a terrorist was caught in the act, that a gun wouldn't do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom