5,000 troops on the streets?

All a bit security theatre isn’t it?

When do we get the TSA prodding our bollocks as we enter a concert hall?

As I’ve noted before I’m not all that worried about terrorist nutters killing some few of us. Yes, easy to say as it’s not me howling at the skies in rage at the theft of my children.

But what do we want, 65 million subject to pass laws and id cards and communications interception and the state, that Courageous State, still failing to protect us or the sacrifice of handfuls of us over time on that altar of secular freedom?

I’ve always worried much more about what government might do to us to stop the bearded nutters than I have about the nutters themselves.

Not being a brave man I’ll not try asking those whose faces are still shining from the tracks of their tears. But I will ask you.

114 comments on “5,000 troops on the streets?

  1. I suppose it’s security theatre until that one day when some twat decides to kick off near you and there are squaddies in the next street. I might be misremembering but haven’t French soldiers taken one or two out?

    I don’t like the idea and I don’t think it’s likely to be very useful but there are automatic weapons a few miles away from the UK and they will get in and there will be a massacre. Might this stop or at least slow it? Maybe.

    What if you knew they were planning to go house to house in your bit of Portugal?

  2. Put another way, if any of us knew that his street were to be targeted he would welcome Tommy Atkins with open arms. People only say they don’t want protection when operating behind a veil of ignorance, and working the odds. They think the chances are it will be another street, so they say it’s unnecessary.

  3. But what do we want, 65 million subject to pass laws and id cards and communications interception and the state, that Courageous State, still failing to protect us or the sacrifice of handfuls of us over time on that altar of secular freedom?

    Doesn’t this always simply come back to “targeted versus mass”.

    I’m perfectly happy for the targeted activity to be well funded, providing that “we” are mostly agreed as to what the target is.

    Of course, “we” suggests some sort of common thinking, values, etc…

  4. There is still an election on, just about. The Tories will be keen to emphasis the difference between May and the terrorists’ friend. I expect they’ll overshoot, given the way they’ve handled it all so far.

  5. As a wise man once said, war is the health of the state.

    — “what do we want, 65 million subject to pass laws and id cards and communications interception and the state, that Courageous State, still failing to protect us or the sacrifice of handfuls of us over time on that altar of secular freedom?”

    That’s really a false dichotomy.

    The solution – where Britain retains its traditional freedoms and where children aren’t systematically raped and butchered – is the eradication of Islam from Britain.

  6. Re “Targeted” v “Mass” … it turns out the little bastard who did this had been to Libya recently and in recent weeks had grown a beard and taken to chanting loudly in Arabic. A little targeted fucking effort might have helped.

  7. wat dabney – “The solution – where Britain retains its traditional freedoms and where children aren’t systematically raped and butchered – is the eradication of Islam from Britain.”

    As I have been saying for some time. Muslim majority countries all torture. They all have appalling human rights abuses. There is no other way of ruling Muslims. Their utterly dysfunctional culture ensures it.

    The choice is between civil rights and no Muslims or no civil rights and lots of Muslims. A liberal society can only survive among liberal people.

  8. Telegraph: “Born in 1994, the second youngest of four children, Abedi’s parents were Libyan refugees who fled to the UK to escape Gaddafi.”

    Gaddafi died more than 5 years ago.

  9. Cynic – I don’t think you could blame them for not wanting to return to Libya just at the moment, irrespective of the fact that Gaddafi is no longer around. (Though the fact that they apparently have returned to a war zone where Islamist maniacs are everywhere perhaps says quite a bit about them.)

  10. Bollocks to troops on the streets.

    It is just the sort of nonsense to be feared from that daft cow May. She is thick as well as arrogant and authoritarian and must NOT be allowed to be laying this kind of police state shite.

    Squaddies are of little use anyway. The IRA were not suicide bombers. With a suicide crew all squaddies will do is to is provide extra targets.

    Any guns need to be in our hands NOT the military. Also how handy for a police state to have the costumed thugs already on the street.

    The action needs to be against our dear imported friends and fuck dumb ideas from Dress-Up. She is a dangerous arrogant authoritarian BluLabour buffoon who is also deeply stupid and a bungler. No apologies for repeating those points cause people need to take them on board. So far she has been lucky with Brexit. Her animal cunning has taken her that far.

    But the mistakes will come thick and fast from now on.

  11. You could just have a security crack down on the communities where the terrorists come from, and add in more profiling. The reason we have security at airports is that is where the risk is concentrated. So target the areas where the planning is concentrated. Of course, those laws then get abused everywhere else and police do the exact opposite and police easy things first. But that’s an incentives problem. So what we really need is private terrorist infiltration firms incentivised to prevent attacks and radicalisation. Why aren’t these emerging in such communities more anyway?

  12. You’ll never stop it, because terrorists will always look for weak points. Secure the airports, they’ll bomb the trains. Add the trains, they’ll bomb gigs. Police gigs? Airport, trains and gigs are now avoided, and terrorists go for shopping centres.

    The only answer is working out what is incentivising this behaviour and killing the incentives. And this clearly can be incentivised as this isn’t a problem across the whole population, but one group.

  13. And what Geoff Taylor said, in spades.

    Another ‘known known’ that everyone with the will to do something about was too hidebound by political correctness to act.

  14. Interested: “Cynic – I don’t think you could blame them for not wanting to return to Libya just at the moment…”

    Yet, seems they have, after all.

  15. @Interested

    Indeed, but who cares what this family wanted? Asylum is for desperate need, not want.

    Asylum from socialist Gaddafi, yep, I can see that being a desperate need. But if the specific reason for asylum has expired, as Gaddafi quite literally did in 2011, the family should return.

    I agree with having an asylum system. I don’t agree with it being a way of getting citizenship, bypassing the “high-skill immigration” channel.

  16. Decisive action is needed DJ.

    But not decidedly stupid action like troops on the streets.

    Action against our dear imported friends is where it is at and that May won’t touch with a bargepole.

  17. Interesting that the Iman of the guy’s mosque is saying he thought he was a wong un. I wonder if he went to the police or if they decided to deal with it ‘in-house’?

  18. Putting soldiers on the street for the populace to see at least straightens out the fact that we in a defensive war with Islam. They declared it 1400 years ago and reiterate it, it’s just the political classes refuse to notice. I suppose the army will take the pressure off the few armed police officers, but does not address the problem. Rounding up and interning known extremists, until the election and the holy month of exploding jihadists are over, would be more constructive.

  19. Perhaps the soldiers can help keep the peace whilst the police have got their hands full arresting people who express criticism of Islam.

  20. Remember how much better Britain was before we’d heard of such things as ‘Sharia Law’, ‘child grooming’, and ‘female genital mutilation’?

    Send them back. Send them all back. Including the ones who by mischance were born here – for we owe nothing to cuckoo’s eggs.

  21. I wonder if this family’s contribution to the UK from their diversity and multiculturalism outweighs the cost. Tricky one.

    This specific attack was caused by letting in people we didn’t need here. 22 dead because of that.

    Any ‘asylum’ policy cannot work if the people it imports are the problem, not the victims.

  22. @Fred

    But they didn’t take the rest of their family with them. The bit they left behind just committed multiple murders.

    Engage with the point, don’t try to score them.

  23. Cynic,

    “I agree with having an asylum system.”

    For Islamic countries, I don’t. OK, send over kids under 3, burn their identity papers, raise them as David or Susan. But beyond that, the brainwashing of medieval theocracy has already begun. There’s plenty of Islamic states with space for other Muslims. Hell, I don’t even mind throwing money at the problem to help those people.

    We’ve just had a bombing by someone who was raised by mostly liberal parents, in one of the most liberal mosques in the UK, and he got radicalized. If he’d never gone into a mosque, never read the Koran, never had those links, that would not have happened.

  24. Indeed. Asylum possibly, but on condition that you first reject Islam entirely and forever.

    Don’t like it? Fuck off then.

  25. Surely the obvious assumption is that the army will be there to protect the muslims from the extreme right?

    The government has been importing brown people, against the wishes of the British people, since 1948. On the principle of not ascribing to malice that which can be explained by craven imbecility, I assume they thought Muslims would be no more of a problem than Hindus or Sikhs. Once that djinn was out of the bottle the government then decided, again with no thought for the wishes of the British people, to surrender unreservedly. What sensible person would bring a child into such a mess?

  26. “If he’d never gone into a mosque, never read the Koran, never had those links, that would not have happened”

    Maybe.

    But if he had never been in this country it for sure wouldn’t have happened.

  27. Security searches at the gate have an intrinsic flaw If a suicide bomber is stopped and searched all they need is a way of detonating the device there and then in the crowd of people in the queue, to pretty much the same effect.

  28. Steve,

    You’d be far better off going after the white-skinned apologists writing in the Guardian so they can see for themselves the glory of Living in Harmony with the locals in [pick your shithole].

    disclaimer: I am Cuckoo, as you so nicely put it (or at least would probably be confused with one by the boneheads employed by the state to effect your well thought out policy idea).

  29. In other news, the ‘Guardian’ is busily throwing Morrisey under the bus:

    “In his statement, the former Smiths frontman claimed that politicians are safe from attacks, while the rest of the country is left vulnerable. The MP Jo Cox was murdered by a rightwing extremist last June. (One MP against how many MOPs?)

    Morrissey cited government immigration policy among his complaints saying the prime minister would never change her immigration policy in the light of the attacks. It is believed that the bomber named by police, Salman Abedi, was British-born and from Manchester. (A dog born in a stable is a horse!)

    Morrissey also appeared to suggest that politicians were afraid to refer to Abedi as an Islamist extremist. The claim that politically correct leaders routinely refuse to mention Islam when referring to terror attacks carried out by people holding a violent interpretation of the religion is common on the far-right. In recent years, many politicians have acknowledged the role of such an ideology once it has been confirmed, while also stressing that it is alien to the vast majority of the religion’s adherents. (See, he’s a wrong ‘un, the lefty vegan!)”

  30. We keep hearing that it is extreme religion which is the problem, not religion per se. But how do we know that the supreme being is not an extremist too?

    Given the total lack of any evidence for God or gods of any kind, we can’t know. It is only our reason which leads us away from barbarism.

    It is high time we stopped actively supporting religion. The moderates are holding the door open for the extremists. It is difficult to criticise extreme religion when such criticism exposes your own lack of justification.

  31. @BiWiltshire

    I believe in having a strict, time-limited, very conditional, no-citizenship-ever system. It feels like the right thing to do.

    But there’s nothing in what you’ve written that I have a counter to.

    Your logic > my feelz.

    Policy should be decided on logic.

  32. Shit, I missed the chance to say “muh feelz”. Try again.

    @BiWilts

    Your logic > muh feelz.

    🙂

  33. Nautical Nick–Can’t say I’ve noticed the CoE involved in much terrorism lately.

    But–speaking of the evil of religion– there is one that must be broken.

    Socialism.

    There can be no victory over bearded murder without victory over the scum of the left.

    As others above show who is out there trying to rationalise –if not defend–recent events? Not the Jihadis themselves but those who brought them here in the first place. Indeed who –not long ago–were promising to “rub our noses” in diversity (apt–it is shite). Well we have had our nose rubbed in blood.

    Are we going to sit back and take that?

  34. @Julia

    “Yet, seems they have, after all.”

    Sure, I said they had. I was simply saying that you could not blame them if they did not want to and that the fact that they had gone back possibly told us quite a lot about them. Someone else somewhere describes them as “liberal” – is there any evidence for this?

  35. Hallowed Be:

    Security searches at the gate have an intrinsic flaw If a suicide bomber is stopped and searched all they need is a way of detonating the device there and then in the crowd of people in the queue, to pretty much the same effect.

    I noted the same thing at Manila airport. Security there x-ray every bag just entering the terminal building, creating huge queues on the street outside. Someone with an automatic rifle could cause at least as much carnage spraying bullets down the lines as someone with a bomb or gun inside could.

  36. @Ecks

    If we all have guns I suppose your theory is that any Islamic attackers will be shot by bystanders. Unfortunately there will be many more Islamic attackers. You cannot run your society on rules designed for a homogeneous, western, Anglo-Saxon population raised on traditional British values based loosely on the bible and 1000 years of tradition for a population that is no longer Anglo-Saxon nor raised on traditional British values. We are where we are, and where we are is up shit creek with a very rotten paddle. The question is how we navigate our way out of shit creek, not making sure everyone in shit creek is armed to the teeth.

  37. DJ – Mark Steyn has been making this point for a long time. Checkpoints and scanners just create targets. However, unless we address the underlying issue it really is a rather binary matter – you either have checkpoints and scanners or you don’t?

  38. There’s been a lot of talk on here about “sending them back”.
    It’s not going to happen. No government would do it.
    But there’s a lot WE could do. Don’t patronise their shops, their businesses. Destroy their community’s commercial base. If you can legally avoid it, don’t have anything to do with them. When it’s a legal obligation matter, push the limits. You may be legally obliged to serve them in a shop or employ them but you don’t have to be efficient (Our business in London never did any work for them. Nor do many of other people in the same line. With good reason. They’re bad payers, liars & cheats. So enquiries were never followed up & any quote would be way over the top)
    They go to the UK because it’s so f****g welcoming. You don’t have to hold out a welcoming hand to your enemies. They stay in the UK because you’re so accommodating. There’s no obligation on you to be so.

  39. @Interested
    Steyn makes a very good point there. The biggest, most target rich environment for the self detonating terrorist, at any airport, is the security check.

  40. I have the same thought when the railscum hem rush-hour commuters in by the hundreds at the barriers when they are trying to get out.

    Cops on the empty side with guns.

    Target-rich environment this side you could just hit from the rear and take your time.

    Surprised it hasn’t happened yet.

  41. Charlie T. – no harm to you mate, but I don’t care.

    We’ve tried living peacefully with our uninvited guests and our kids are being raped, stabbed and blown up as a result. We cannot go on like this. So of course we won’t.

    No doubt that won’t be nice, or even necessarily fair, but frankly, Mr Shankly, what difference does it make?

  42. Cynic,

    Cheers. Actually, i’m not entirely against the idea of everyone from somewhat alien ideological nations being a guest. Europe, USA, Australia? Not a problem.

  43. Just for a second going back to Tim’s original point, touching also on what Ecks and BiS said:

    I’ve always worried much more about what government might do to us to stop the bearded nutters than I have about the nutters themselves.

    I worry more about what government might do to us using their pet nutters as an excuse.

    I say “pet” because the public sector’s socialist welfare state seems to be an essential part of many assholes’ support network (e.g. Thomas Mair with his council house of socialist memorabilia, Anjem Choudary with his “Jihadseeker’s Allowance”*)

    *http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300390/Anjem-Choudary-prosecuted-saying-followers-claim-jihad-seekers-allowance.html

  44. @Cynic

    I was on the Tube the other day with a good friend and we were a few feet away from two armed coppers, each carrying a Glock and an MP5. One of them was a bloke – two stone overweight and physically unimpressive. The other was a (very attractive) brunette, I would say about 5’6″ tall and nine stone soaking wet, tops. My mate and I discussed how easy it would be for us to disarm them, and the conclusion we reached was that the answer was “very”. Get close on a pretext, smash the girl in the face, take the bloke down and you would have their weapons in a matter of seconds. It was actually quite scary when we thought about it.

  45. Not entirely sure that it’s wholly security theatre, but I’d put money on legislation notionally aimed at Facebook et al, that’d be RIPA (v3?), by end of October at the latest. Kind of depends after that, but ID cards will probably be being suggested just before the Budget, so mid-February at the earliest, at a guess.

    I wonder which muppet in the new intake will be prodded into suggesting resurrecting something like the Clipper chip, or key escrow.

  46. I know I’m an outlier on this issue, but I don’t give a shit about my web history and comms being intercepted, with a warrant. I do want the warrants properly overseen, but given that caveat what’s the difference between GCHQ intercepting my eg Facebook messages (if I was on it) and tapping my phones/the spooks steaming open my letters?

  47. JuliaM – I’ve always held an unreasonable amount of chaste manly love in my heart for Stephen Patrick Morrissey, embracing even his sixth form vegan tirades and 2edgy4u Queen-baiting as an essential part of his invincible Mozzanessence.

    He’s worth a thousand squirming little Guardian hacks trying to justify why we should just scrape your children off the pavement and get over it, bigots!

    Morrissey is a national treasure, the bequiffed bard of beautiful bleakness.

    Behead those who insult Esteban.

  48. Interested- I would in time like to see a gun stall on every local market plus the return of mail-order guns (when I was a child my mam’s John England catalogue had a page selling shotguns in the sports section).

    No point to guns without training of course so I would return gun rights to native Britons in a phased manner initially conditional on undertaking private training (not govt sponsored cos diversity bullshit and firearms won’t mix) in their effective COMBATIVE use.

    That the country is full of uncouth imports from unpleasant shitholes is obvious. What the powers that be don’t want you to know is that they already have or have access to lots of guns and more are coming back with the Jihadis. We have coppers and squaddies who are way out-numbered and can’t be everywhere. And in the case of the coppers are of dubious utility having been PC’d into an even deeper stupor than usual.. We –native Britons– need firepower too.

    Legal firearms ownership–like the vote–should be denied to our dear imported friends. They already have and can get plenty of them anyway so that won’t really be a problem for them.

    A “leave it to the authorities” attitude won’t cut it Interested. Because they will do as little as they can and what they will try to do is a police state for all instead of heavy action against the real perps.

    BiS has some good ideas. 20 million letters landing on May’s doormat will also be a major factor. Get writing. It is cheap and easy and if all those against the current state of affairs did it TPTB would shit themselves.

    And the left must be broken or there can be no ultimate victory.

  49. Interested; there’s CCTV video of the attack at one of the Paris airports, I think, a few months ago where that pretty much nearly happened.

    I think that French troops have opened fire a few times, mainly in the south of the country, over the past couple of years.

    I also seem to remember reading that during the Bataclan attack, at least one police officer didn’t return fire, and may not have drawn his weapon.

  50. bloke in spain – “There’s been a lot of talk on here about “sending them back”. It’s not going to happen. No government would do it.”

    I disagree. It is inevitable. That or national extinction.

    Remember what happened to the virtual one-party Labour state of Israel. People don’t like terrorism. They will vote for people who will do something about it.

  51. @Interested.

    carrying a Glock and an MP5 … a (very attractive) brunette, I would say about 5’6″ tall and nine stone soaking wet, tops.

    Dark-haired hottie with guns. Phwooar matey. I’da been struggling not to gurn like Sid James.

    However, what you’ve pointed out has indeed been done with some success:

    “he wrenched away her powerful military-grade assault rifle on Saturday morning.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4326366/Man-shot-dead-Paris-airport-trying-grab-soldier-s-gun.html

  52. Again Interested you can look to surrender what freedom’s we have left but I’m not and I pray that I am not alone.

    Esp when it would have zero effect on what is going on. The streets will be full of slaughter despite any enhanced snooping. Because even low IQ pricks can figure a way around it EASILY.

    It boils my piss to think of political/bureaucratic scum getting away with a police state because of the two-legged trouble that the poli-scum themselves imported.

    If you have any sense you will look to self-reliance and personal action to pressure the scum of the state.
    Hoping for positives to be initiated by the same political offal who caused the mess in the first place is just hopeless delusion.

  53. Morrissey clearly has a much lower estimate of what are “acceptable casualties” to keep our multicultural heaven than does the Guardian or the Government, so he must be destroyed.

    I expect the Government’s (unstated, as always) figure is in the low thousands; I expect the Guardian’s is an order of magnitude higher, at least.

  54. Rob – “I expect the Government’s (unstated, as always) figure is in the low thousands; I expect the Guardian’s is an order of magnitude higher, at least.”

    If the figures were not acceptable – if the Islamists were killing too many – what precisely would the government do? Launch two hashtags?

    The Left is already pointing out the real outrage was that these victims were young and female. Presumably killing an adult White male is a much lesser crime. Both the BBC and CNN is doing it.

  55. >bloke in spain – “There’s been a lot of talk on here about “sending them back”. It’s not going to happen. No government would do it.”

    I disagree. It is inevitable. That or national extinction. <

    Hopefully, SMfS, it's not going to happen. Because the government given the powers to do isn't the sort of government you'd want in power. You think they'd be content to use them just to eject Muslims? They'd use them to counter the most real threat to them. Us. For the government, the threat of a few homicidal terrorists is trivial. Pols live safe behind their security screen. They're hard targets. Why the terrorist goes for soft targets. The public.

  56. what’s the difference between GCHQ intercepting my eg Facebook messages (if I was on it) and tapping my phones/the spooks steaming open my letters

    I don’t believe spooks were ever able to steam open letters retrospectively…

    And the latest legislation is not just about spooks. I would assume they would try and capture data (under the radar) in real time and store it, rather than ask ISPs to do it.

    But why on earth do all the associated agencies (including those such as “the Food Standards Agency”!, DWP, HMRC and a shit load of others), need that facility? Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.

    It’s pretty obvious that this is just a slippery slope. The process will continue, and by the time that those who don’t currently worry start to worry – it’ll be far too late, all the frogs will be boiled and on plates.

  57. “It’s not going to happen. No government would do it.”

    The current elite won’t do it, that is true. But that’s because we kept voting them in, instead of voting for UKIP.

    Even the current Conservative government will eventually do it if we make it impossible for them not to. Can this really just keep on going for decades until we’re taken over? We all have to make our view known. No more Muslims.

  58. Well, I couldn’t be arsed to check the source, fairly sure I didn’t see it on the Mail tho’.

  59. bloke in spain: Oh, really? Did Franco use the powers he wielded to vanquish the communists against real humans? No. He didn’t.

    And a communist is far more deserving of life than a Muslim, or an Arab.

  60. @PF

    I don’t believe spooks were ever able to steam open letters retrospectively.

    I might be missing something, here, but I’m not surew what this means? Spooks have always been able to intercept mail, incoming, outgoing, or read it after it was opened by you. Cops, too.

    But why on earth do all the associated agencies (including those such as “the Food Standards Agency”!, DWP, HMRC and a shit load of others), need that facility? Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.

    Yep, I’m not saying I support the latest legislation – fuck the Food Standards Agency. I’m saying if it helps the Security Service and the SIS to read mail (electronic or otherwise) specificially and only for anti-terrorism purposes under the guidance of a High Court judge I’m okay with it. I don’t like it, but I also don’t like kids being blown up and we need to get better at intercepting the bombs.

    I know Ecksy will produce his thin end of the wedge argument, but he wants Mac-10s available at car boots.

  61. “I know Ecksy will produce his thin end of the wedge argument, but he wants Mac-10s available at car boots”

    Non-sequitor and irrelevant Interested.

    And yes I do. It was so in the old days ( not MAC10’s but their equivalent) and should be so again. But in those days we had a decent population not left-conditioned victims.

  62. The first soldiers have been deployed to protect what appears to be New Scotland Yard, The Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace. Usual suspects will be looked after then.

  63. Paul Rain – you can’t send all ‘hajis’ ‘home’ because for lots of them this is home. You might not like that, and I get why, but it’s a fact. Sorry. If you don’t like it, start a political party which proscribes Islam and campaign for the votes.

  64. Interested you’re right, there’s no where to send them. When you look at countries with significant numbers of Muslims (as a minority) the way to deal with them is manage them properly or accept the consequences.

    China and Singapore manage their Muslim population. Philippines hasn’t.

    Europe is going to have to learn one way or the other.

  65. It’s not irrelevant Ecks – it’s your insanity bubbling up from below the surface again. You confuse what you’d like to do with what is possible, outside a military coup led by you.

    ‘And yes I do. It was so in the old days ( not MAC10’s but their equivalent) and should be so again. But in those days we had a decent population not left-conditioned victims.’

    Yes, the issue is the population, you muppet – it’s just not the issue you think it is. (And I can asssure you I’m no victim :-))

    If you’re a dictator then you can set the rules – only people you, The Great Ecksy, deem fit can buy these guns. But you aren’t a dictator, or ever going to be, and there will never be any way of proscribing gun ownership among muslims with clean records. This guy yesterday, he would have been banned from buying hydrogen peroxide if they’d known what his game was. But they didn’t. So now you potentially have 1.4 million armed muslims in the UK, and it’s a lot easier to shoot people dead than construct a nail bomb. Seriously, gun fantasists are the worst. Have you ever seen a gunshot wound? It’s not like on the telly.

  66. We don’t have to send the current ones home. We’ll have to deal with them. But we stop letting more in. And we don’t need a new political party (though that would be good). We start pressuring the current ones. They’ll turn about face pretty quick if there’s enough pressure. Otherwise the future of the UK is going to be civil war. Not just between whites and Muslims. But between ordinary whites and the elites. Unless there’s a change soon, things aren’t going to end well in the UK, or Europe.

  67. you can’t send all ‘hajis’ ‘home’ because for lots of them this is home

    I’m sure the Moors of Andalusia thought so, too.

  68. One thing I found interesting in Murray’s book (The Strange Death of Europe) is that even many Islamic governments are astounded that we let these nutters run around unimpeded. In many Muslim countries, if some imam starts sounding off about the superiority of god’s law over man’s, they arrest the bugger and bulldoze his mosque.

  69. Mass deportation is a difficult option. Morally and logistically. Do we leave them standing –like the Israelites sans Moses– in the clothes they stand up in on the North African shore? When –even if we could manage such a colossal exercise in logistics (charter all the world’s cruise liners?)–they would likely die of mass starvation or be slaughtered by the locals who would want none of them.

    No.

    The keys are:

    1–No more in.

    2-They lose the vote. Ensuring they will never be kingmakers or able to constantly improve their situation by promising support to any shade of political scum.

    3–No more subsidized breeding program. No more benefit bonanza.

    4-No more mosques/halal ended.

    5-Encourage those who don’t like the new circs to pick up a small bounty (cheaper than civil war) take their families and go for good. Many will leave once they realise they aren’t going to win and there is nothing for them here.

    6–Get them out of the jails and into deportation via camps.

    7–Break the left. Who are the allies of jihadis. Break all their PC bullshit esp the anti-white narrative. Make the muslim brotherhood a banned terrorist organisation.

    8–Widespread anti-leftist globalist measures. Arrest Soros and The Digger and their brats. Confiscate all cash and assets of the same that can be got at and that of all of the top world families etc–ie have a good go at the Elite.

    9–Fix the Saudis wagon and confiscate as much of their cash as possible. Wahabbist activity totally banned in the UK.

    These measures will encourage a halt to their rising numbers and a eventually bring about a steady decline.

    Measures might also be taken to boost our own birth rate and make kids proud of this nation and what it has achieved in the world. The Purge of both school and Uni would be needed to manage that tho.

  70. Nah Steve they are manageable.

    After the race riots in S’pore the government said fuck this and made a rule that government housing (in which almost all the Malays lived) has to represent something approaching national proportions. So where we have what, 4% Muslim population(?), in every council estate only one in twenty houses in can home a Muslim family. Then you police the mosques and anyone preaching nasty bullshit never sees the light of day again. No Muslim schools.

    Or you do the China option and let them stay in mostly one region while only letting ‘Uncle Toms’ anywhere near a position of authority. While disappearing anyone who preaches otherwise, banning calling your kids ‘Mohammad’ etc, forcing mosques to swear allegiance to the Queen ( or in China’s case Xi Jingping) and what not.

    Personally I prefer the S’pore option.

    They are manageable, you just have to not take any shit. The west’ problem is we think they can coexist with us in a liberal democracy.

  71. Interested

    It was the first bit, which I didn’t quote – you said web “history”, which of course was what a good chunk of last year’s latest Investigatory Powers Bill was about (internet connection records etc).

    The rest of what you say – I think we’re in agreement – I have no problem with insofar as it’s targeted (#). Targeted versus mass is a key distinction for me in determining whether these forces are spying on our enemies or spying on us.

    Hence, yes, obviously I am perfectly happy with our chaps very actively investigating (by whatever means) unshaven chaps and / or wearing pyjamas out in the street in broad daylight (chanting or otherwise) – or whatever more useful criteria the spooks consider to be relevant.

    (# – Web histories are by definition “retrospective mass surveillance”, ie not at all targeted).

  72. How many times do I have to say it Interested?

    They can already get all the firepower they want and more is on the way from mid-east shitholes every day. There is tons of Saudi cash swashing around as well to cover any shortfall in supply.

    I also said that legal gun ownership would be only for native Britons. Illegal guns they already have. Why would they try for legal purchases?

    The “authorities” aren’t going to handle this mess. As was said above the first use of squaddies–apart from more useless security West Ending is to protect said fucking authorities. Who are already protected.

    The Jihadis will have guns. The forces of HM BluLabour Don’t-Lets-Upset-Them regiment will have guns (and so what). The only people without guns will be us . The intended victims. You might be happy with that but you are WRONG.

    Never mind gunshots. Have you seen a nail bomb wound Interested?. Or someone whose been stabbed or booted to death? It is all fucking nasty. I prefer to die–if die I must–shooting back. That would hurt less than being blubbered over by a set of sell-out CM wankers mouthing “Lessons will be learned” or “Je suis a Cop-sucker” or–worst of all–“Leave it to the proper AUTHORITAHS”.

    Because –in case you haven’t noticed–the “authorities” don’t give a shit beyond talking out their backsides.

  73. One great example of Muslim management is something I saw in a Chinese Shoe factory a few years ago.

    This factory I had visited annually one year had suddenly replaced all the usual Han workers with Uigers from Xinjiang province, tens of thousands of them. I asked what that was all about and the factory manager tells me that they’re cheaper labour so they sent busses several thousand miles across the country to recruit them.

    The following year I go back and every worker was Han again. I ask what had happened. Their reply? ” Oh the Muslims are too much trouble so we just sacked them all and replaced them with locals”.

    Imagine trying that shit in Europe?

  74. Ecks – the trouble is you can’t define native Britons away from Muslims. There are people born here with Pakistani parents. Are they native? Perhaps not in the world you envisage, but legally, yes. Change the law – maybe via a military coup, I can’t see it via democracy, pretty much no matter how many bombings there are. We can all piss into the wind, but what’s the point? What about third or fourth generation people? What about 25th generation Brits who convert?

    Steve – the Moors of Andalucia? Come on, you can do better. Even Ecks thinks trying to deport 1.4 million people is nuts.

    I like DJ’s Singapore option, with bits of Ecksy’s – I totally agree re smashing the left, jails, Saudis.

    PF – ah right. But not sure you’re correct – the cops regularly convict people of serious offences on retrospective mobile phone usage, for instance. Doesn’t mean they sweep everyone in the country up.

  75. And re guns, every other bloke in my village has one, either a shotgun or a rifle. Jihadis have yet to kill anyone here with guns.

  76. 1.4 million? Nearer 4 million more like.

    As for who is British. Mixed parentage with the RoP or Subsahara = no legal gun rights. Sorry and all that. Perhaps in later years when this mess has been sorted out.

    Also we need a “Truth and Non-Reconciliation* ” Commission to roust out and punish all those political/ Senior Civil Service hacks responsible for our present mess right back to the Windrush–if any former poli-pork or bureaucrats from that era still live. Call it Enoch’s revenge.

    The good news is that Bliar would be caught in that net even if he escapes a war crimes tribunal.

    * Or whatever the opposite of “reconciliation” is.

  77. 1.4 million? Nearer 4 million more like.

    2.7 million officially but I was working on the basis that even you would only allow adult ownership!

    As for who is British. Mixed parentage with the RoP or Subsahara = no legal gun rights. Sorry and all that. Perhaps in later years when this mess has been sorted out.

    Yes but this is just your personal masturbatory fantasy. It is so unlikely and unworkable that I start to think you’re actually trolling.

  78. Mixed parentage is a mine field. Ok, personal issue but, my daughter is mixed parentage. No Muslim there but still the same problems can arise. She’s half English and half Filipino. If the British government and the Philippines government both decided that only children of parents who were both from that respective country can be a citizen, and they are going to revoke citizenship otherwise, then she’s stateless.

  79. In response to Tim’s original worry, not having been in work recently, I have a beard and a bit of a tan.

    With armed coppers roaming the streets you can be damn sure the beard is coming off before I next go into London. I don’t want to be the next de Menezes.

    (As I understand it, the squaddies have taken the roles guarding institutions that armed coppers normally do, releasing them to be a ‘presence’)

  80. It’s worse than Mark Stern implies. All airports use the same technologies, processes and procedures. I’ll bet they use the same companies to vet their staff as well. Once a terrorist has found a hack, loophole or other weakness every airport is vulnerable.

    Same goes for those doing event security.

  81. One thing I found interesting in Murray’s book (The Strange Death of Europe) is that even many Islamic governments are astounded that we let these nutters run around unimpeded.

    That’s exactly the point my Syrian mate made.

  82. ‘You can not inspect quality into the product.’ – W. Edwards Deming

    5,000 troops on the street cannot inspect all potential terrorists. Every Muslim – EVERY MUSLIM – is a potential terrorist. You have no way of knowing which will act soon.

    Salman Abedi didn’t kill Saffie Roussos, Islam did. Until you understand that, you are doomed.

  83. “But what do we want, 65 million subject to pass laws and id cards and communications interception and the state, that Courageous State, still failing to protect us or the sacrifice of handfuls of us over time on that altar of secular freedom?”

    I would like neither of the options in this false dichotomy please. Ending immigration of muslims would be a good first step. Payments to encourage return home of those already here would also bee good.

  84. “It is so unlikely and unworkable that I start to think you’re actually trolling.”

    Sez you Interested. For my part I don’t know what you are blithering about.

    You keep banging on about the RoP trying to get legal guns. Apart from perverse refusal to accept your own wrongness on this topic– why?

    They already have plenty of illegal firepower and will get vast amounts more. Why would they be dumb enough to flag themselves up trying to buy a legal shooter when the law would say that they can’t. If even if you lie or forge documents you would have to pass as a Briton not from an excluded category or you don’t get a firearm licence. You would have to be white, Sikh, Hindu, Chinese, West Indian with background checks no criminal record and be tested for a bacon fat allergy to get a licence. If you are RoP or SubSahara –no chance. End of story. Our self-declared foes will still be armed –but not by legal means.

    “there will never be any way of proscribing gun ownership among muslims with clean records. ”

    Yes there will. A law that says exactly that. Part of the same act that removes their voting rights.

    As you are so fond of the Authorities then consider the return of a British Yeomanry. Which will ONLY accept Britons of UK ancestry to prevent 5th columnist infiltration. They could be armed under supervision as a measure towards full restoration of UK weapons rights and serve as a backup to the Armed Forces.

    Ultimately FULL rights of weapon ownership MUST be restored. But that can be over time with freedom gradually being increased.

    You are absolutely right that none of this is possible with the political scum that we have. And a sizable chunk of the population are cowardly cucks. But Brexit would have been just as impossible a while back.

    If enough people stand up to make it clear that we will tolerate no more of this shite then even the present establishment will have to take notice.

  85. An apartheid state can still be the epitome of freedom for its citizens. States do not need to have open borders in order to be free. In fact it could be argued the other way more convincingly.

  86. Almost all the terrorists seem to have the following attributes:
    -nominally Sunni ( the other branches of Islam have been are ok here )
    -working age and male ( so no pensioners )
    -criminal record
    -have travelled abroad to a majority Sunni region
    -2nd generation immigrant ( so 1st and 3rds probably ok )

    One exception to that lot is the Russell Sq bomber in 2005, but the rest of the gang fitted the above profile

    I don’t want ’em rounding up, I don’t want someone who completes the profile being in jail until they are 65, I’d rather live in a liberal country thanks. But if we’re going to do something horrible that drags decent Sunnis with a caution into the net, then at least be forensic about the problem. It is not Islam – in the UK it is overwhelmingly and specifically deviants from one branch of it.

  87. “5,000 troops on the streets?
    All a bit security theatre isn’t it? ”

    It occurs, maybe…maybe not.
    A lot of those troops will have served in our politicians’ foreign wars. Will have learned to do that forbidden crime. Discriminate. What kept them alive.
    Maybe they won’t be strip-searching granny whilst an apparently heavily pregnant figure in a burka & size twelve trainers ambles past unimpeded, coz of “sensitivity”.

  88. Bongo–doesn’t even begin to address the problem.

    Put crudely the bomb and the gun are far less of a weapon than their dicks. And the political king/deal-making power their ever-rising numbers will give them. That is what will destroy us unless we start to cramp their style and first halt and then reverse their rise.

    The bomb and gun nuts are actually working against their own crew by sounding the alarm. If they were smart they would have laid low for another 2 or 3 decades or more until their numbers positioned them for the takeover.

  89. You’re on form today, Ecks. These two out of many funny bits.

    “They already have plenty of illegal firepower and will get vast amounts more.”

    “They can already get all the firepower they want and more is on the way from mid-east shitholes every day..”

    So why the IEDs and random knife attacks? Which ‘mid-east shotholes”).

  90. There are a thousand ways to kill multiple people. The idea that you will gain peace by restricting weapons is ignorant. Dangerously so. You can’t get all the weapons, and anything can be used as a weapon.

    Lorry attacks seem quite effective. A car attack in Times Square last week. Petrol is a horrendous weapon if used as such.

    The problem isn’t things. It’s people. Address the problem. Talking about things is a distraction. Or theatre, ACTING like you are doing something.

  91. It’s going to take one of three things:
    1) total immigration restrictions from the Middle East and Africa and targeted sanctions on the ones that have already arrived, including paying them to leave
    2) the expulsion of the current population
    3) Einsatzgruppe

    Here in CR we don’t have a problem with Mohammedans acting like Mohammedans by the simple expedient of not having any.

  92. BiND, I disagree with Paine.

    ‘Such criminals should be detected, arrested and tried. If convicted they should go to the same prisons as other murderers and be treated exactly the same.’

    These are not criminal murderers. They are Agents of Islam.

    Paine’s view of criminal justice completely misses the point. He’s stuck in his white bread world. Paine’s passive criminal justice won’t work with Agents of Islam. Agents of Islam couldn’t care less about going to prison – even the same ones as criminals go to. They don’t expect to survive their acts. Prison is no deterrence.

    Western Civilization criminal justice is based on reaction, not prevention. Our reactionary system can’t work with people whose culture is to kill people who aren’t like them.

    The notion that terrorists are just criminals is exactly what Obama/Holder tried to sell the U.S. The do not exist independent of Islam.

  93. Gamecock has the solution. Terrorism in England can end today.

    Bury Salman Abedi with a pig in his casket.

  94. Interested – “you can’t send all ‘hajis’ ‘home’ because for lots of them this is home. You might not like that, and I get why, but it’s a fact. Sorry. If you don’t like it, start a political party which proscribes Islam and campaign for the votes.”

    A lot of French people – and Algerian Jews – thought Algeria was home too. Turned out they were wrong.

    Ten percent of the population had to move to France.

    A party that will proscribe Islam is inevitable in the UK unless, of course, they become a majority before the penny drops.

  95. TimN
    As I see it, the first thing you do when you win a revolution is to make sure there are no more revolutions. It turns out that Islam is no different from Communism in this respect.

  96. SMFS – I agree. Might even support such a party myself – Islam is nothing more than a political system designed to take over the world masquerading as a religion anyway. But proscribing Islam is not the same as sending all the ‘hajis’ back – it is telling them they cannot practise their religion.

  97. “A lot of French people – and Algerian Jews – thought Algeria was home too. Turned out they were wrong.”

    A lot of white Zimbabweans thought Zimbabwe was home, turns out they were wrong too.

    Odd how thats fine but us wanting Muslims to leave wouldn’t be………………..

  98. …But I will ask you.

    Mulled this a bit today.

    Maybe our society is like a junkie that needs to hit rock bottom.

    So individually we do what we can to look after our own families, but trying to fix the society itself is beyond any of us.

    Being poetic, maybe Brexit wasn’t a roar of defiance so much as a bark of protest.

    When I look just how much self-loathing there is among the SJWs, the Left and the enforcers that feed off it (cops, HR, taxmen), I really don’t know how you’d turn that around before it, well, hit rock bottom.

    I’m not sure the heft of self-loathing and short term thinking is something those of us that rather like and take responsibility for ourselves and our freedoms can out-weigh.

    You can’t speak your mind without taking great care. Your earnings are only what the State allows you to keep. You’ve been disarmed and are told to be “reasonable” if someone breaks into the house your kids are sleeping in. You can’t even drive down your own roads that you paid for without having public sector creeps with cameras spying on you.

    What do you do when most people around you are too afraid to be free?

    Sounds defeatist, but I reckon it may just be a case of keeping your own shit together and hoping for the rebound.

  99. This might already be a dead thread and I’m writing stuff no-one will read. But what the hell.

    The problem with people like (most of) us here is that we don’t stick together. We don’t see each other right through hard times, give each other first dibs on jobs, trade together out of preference, that kind of thing.

    I guess the achilles heal of not being collectivist is we go off as individuals, we argue over the minor points, we don’t produce many leaders because it isn’t our nature to follow.

    We’re spread out, thinly dispersed, we go on our merry way and do better than most around us due to attitude, but we never team up long enough to make something bigger.

  100. Cynic

    I’m reminded of “leaders, followers and individuals”.

    Leaders and followers have that symbiotic need / relationship.

    Individuals are the misfits, the enemy even..:)

  101. The thing is, I think us individualist misfits actually do need each other. As paradoxical as that sounds.

  102. Cynic: “We’re spread out, thinly dispersed, we go on our merry way and do better than most around us due to attitude, but we never team up long enough to make something bigger.”

    Except in the face of existential threat?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.