Maybe Paris wasn’t quite the right target

The French did after all go to war against Greenpeace.

And if they’re willing to blow up hippies over mutterings about nuclear testing then what will they be willing to do against mass murderers in the capital?

(From John Squire in the comments)

120 thoughts on “Maybe Paris wasn’t quite the right target”

  1. Greenpeace doesn’t have several million members in France, a large part of them in Paris.
    Greenpeace doesn’t have loads of guns.
    Greenpeace doesn’t have a sophisticated network of terrorist training.
    Greenpeace doesn’t have several thousand members willing to strap a bomb to their backs and kill lots of people.
    Greenpeace doesn’t have a soon to be nuclear armed state to back them up.

  2. Yes, Rich, but two things:

    If the good ones won’t turn in the bad ones because of ‘Islam’, there’s a reasonable case to be made for failing to distinguish (to some degree) between the two sets of folks.

    and secondly- our (in the UK, that is) legislative response to this threat is starting to look like the wrong tool for the job. Why? The ISIS thing is peculiarly Muslim, and to act against it requires a stance that recognises that. The Sikh’s aren’t trying this shit, and if there’s some branches of Islam we can get along with then fine. I’d just prefer to err on the side of caution, here. Health and safety, and all that.

    Also: I now appear to be in the stone roses. Excellent. Although I was more a Monday’s man.

  3. Harry Haddocks Ghost

    “Please don’t confuse Muslims and Isis. You don’t beat hate with hate.”

    Yes, because everywhere Islam thrives, respect for women, free speech, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, the freedom to eat and drink what one chooses, freedom to have hanky panky with whoever one chooses, and the freedom to be a basic fucking human being follow, don’t they? In each and every case.

    ‘Please don’t confuse your average, run of the mill, work a day Nazi’s with those SS barbarians. You don’t beat hate with hate’

  4. I think what might be different this time is that Hollande was not so far from being knocked off himself: he was in the stadium when the bombs went off outside. He might be taking this one personally.

  5. What bit? Don’t like the Happy Mondays?

    Look: I’m not saying Islam = ISIS. I’m just saying that assuming ISIS’ beliefs have zero support in the wider Muslim community is a risky strategy. There is clearly a threat to the country here, and our current strategy seems to be more around avoiding offence that protecting people.

  6. Maybe we should take lessons from the Greens and apply the precautionary principle to Islam. All Muslims must be considered to be ISIS sympathizers until they demonstrate otherwise

  7. That was @Rich, btw.

    Although I’m glad to see the usual response to a massacred of innocents is underway. Half my Facebook timeline has now updated their profile picture to the CND/Eiffel tower thing.

    That’ll put the shits up the terrorists.

  8. “Rob – Several million members in Paris? Please don’t confuse Muslims and Isis. You don’t beat hate with hate.”

    Yes Rob, never forget that muslims are the real victims here.

  9. Rich: if you don’t like the proposed response- give us a better one.

    Mass airdrops of the Guardian? Diversity awareness seminars for the survivors and their families? Mandatory multicultural radio plays for those of us in the Shires so wrongthink can be challenged, thus nullifying the threat of being shot when I take the kids to Hamley’s next week?

  10. Muslims are the real victims here? That’s odd, I thought it was the 120 or so dead in Paris who were the real victims.

  11. John Square,

    Give them 24 hours and they’ll be back on ‘message’. “Well we musn’t overreact, after all Muslims are oppressed in the West and we treat them very badly, blah…blah…blah”

    It only took a few hours last time for #jesuischarlie advocates to start posting about how ‘free speech doesn’t include the right to insult Muslims…”

  12. Because I don’t believe the same as you I’m a leftie? Just because I’m not a bigot doesn’t make me a leftie. The aim of the attack was to cause division, to create this untrust in Islam. Isis believe if you are a Muslim you are with them or against them, no in between. If you persecute those who are against them, in case a tiny % might be a sympathiser, you make them stronger, you push people to them.
    Spreading hate is what fundamentalists do, why would you want to do the same, albeit from the other side?

  13. Im very much right wing, just have a lot of Muslim friends who are as shocked and upset at this as me. Does that make me a leftie?

  14. Rich, I get your point, and follow your logic: I just suspect that part of Islam that is doing the provoking will stop at nothing.

    Anything short of fighting them and winning outright is Danegeld.

    Measures taken to this point look more like appeasement than the right long term solution

  15. And ditto on the Muslim colleagues & friends. One of which is wondering why “we” (his term not mine) “haven’t nuked Raqqua”.

    Pissweak responses aren’t helping.

  16. I’m not talking appeasement, I’m not saying don’t bomb Isis. All I’m saying is this is not all of Islam, not all Muslims. My comment was a response to robs “millions of members in France” comment, implicating all Muslims in this. Intolerance will make Isis stronger, that is a fact we need to be wary of.

  17. Harry Haddocks Ghost

    Rich.

    Believing that Islam is a flawed cult is not bigotry. It is opinion.

    All religions are man made belief systems. Man is fallible, therefore his creations are fallible and open to criticism.

    To suggest otherwise is just plain daft.

  18. Rich: fair enough. My point is that we’ve a group of people, many of whom seem to hold views that are polar opposites to the liberal basis of society here. Treading overly lighting around sensitivities has in part gotten us here, and with another 130 people dead, a change in strategy may be required.

  19. The more you go after IS in France, the more ‘moderate’ Muslims will close ranks. They will be bombarded with propaganda from both their own people and the western media about how it is a war against all of them. When it comes down to a choice, how many will chose France and how many won’t?

  20. BTW ‘distrust’ of Islam is a perfectly rational opinion. To trust Islam, given the colossal evidence to the contrary, requires some mental ingenuity.

  21. “And if they’re willing to blow up hippies over mutterings about nuclear testing then what will they be willing to do against mass murderers in the capital?”

    Sweet FA if their response is anything like the last time there was a mass murder in the capital.

  22. France historically has had a pretty robust attitude to security problems, and a total lack of regard for global opinion. This isn’t Charlie Hebdo. We’ll see, but I expect major fallout. Won’t be nice for anyone.

    On the other hand, some heads should be rolling (metaphorically, and it’s sad I have to point that out) in the French security services. There must have been dozens of people involved in this thing. Yet it all went off perfectly from the attackers point of view.

  23. “You don’t beat hate with hate.” Oh I don’t know. Lots of Britons came to hate Jerry, and the Russians did so in spades. And we won, and so crushed Germany that it now welcomes invaders.

  24. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Maybe we should take lessons from the Greens and apply the precautionary principle to Islam. All Muslims must be considered to be ISIS sympathizers until they demonstrate otherwise”

    Until we see the MCB organising “not in my name” marches I’m inclined to agree.

    I’m also with AC Graying*, we shouldn’t be tolerating the intolerant and stop appeasing them and their demands for our society to limit freedom of speech.

    *Assuming he hasn’t changed his mind since he wrote Liberty in the Age of Terror

  25. BiND: we’ll see the Kardashians forsaking the to cameras for a quiet life of seclusion before we’ll see the MCB do more than utter meaningless platitudes (followed by more demands) over this.

  26. “I’m also with AC Graying*, we shouldn’t be tolerating the intolerant and stop appeasing them and their demands for our society to limit freedom of speech.”

    The problem is that many of the establishment have allied themselves with islam to undermine western freedoms.
    How long do you think it will take before we hear: ” The Police take a robust view of anyone who attacks muslims on Social Media.” ?

  27. There is the thought that the Muslim community in France could show their loyalty to their adoptive country by identifying the rabble rousing IZAL supporters. A refusal to do so would show where their true loyalties and beliefs lie. Such a refusal would confirm their statement that Islam is a religion of peace , really meaning that only when all other religions and beliefs have been extinguished, leaving only Islam, there will be peace, apart from the Sunnis, Shiites, Wahabbis, etc, who will continue to kill each other..

  28. ‘a lot of Muslim friends who are as shocked and upset at this as me.’

    Not shocked enough to do anything about it. The Muslim community has a gross defect which only they can fix.

  29. When I heard of the attack, I wondered, “Was it Muslims?”

    The American press did not answer the question for several hours, not until they couldn’t hide it any more. The Obama administration conspicuously did not mention Muslims in their public statements.

  30. Re the idea of nuking Raqqua. Are there any innocents left there? Do Isis allow people to leave, the ones they haven’t already murdered?

  31. There were millions of people who said nothing in Germany. Look what happened. There are millions of Muslims who are saying nothing. What will hpen?

  32. We’re at war. Anyone suspected of being an enemy sympathiser should be interned. If they are willing, we should pay them handsomely to return to an Islamic country. How many have to die before we realise that the solution lies in understanding that Islam is incompatible with western values and that separation of civilisation and barbarism is necessary to preserve peace?

  33. DocBud, the problem is we are NOT at war. They are at war, but we ignore it. Obama et al pretend the war doesn’t exist.

    I think you are right, separatism is the only solution. Meanwhile, unseparatism engulfs the EU. Interesting times.

  34. “Wow there are some bigots about today.”
    There were no bigoted comments between this and “wow ridiculous comment”

    You are a leftist because you act like one, no matter what you might think or pretend to be.

  35. “We’re at war. Anyone suspected of being an enemy sympathiser should be interned. If they are willing, we should pay them handsomely to return to an Islamic country. How many have to die before we realise that the solution lies in understanding that Islam is incompatible with western values and that separation of civilisation and barbarism is necessary to preserve peace?”

    Correct. In the media today there are lots of responses saying that we should bomb Syria and lots of responses saying we should increase the powers of the security services to look into our private business.

    But there are no serious suggestions that we should separate and protect ourselves from Islam, the source of this problem. This is because division works to the advantage of governments, to an extent, and they think they are managing it.

  36. “Please don’t confuse Muslims and Isis.”

    You mean like not confusing HIV and AIDS? Curiously, one seems to lead to the other, and getting rid of the precursor may well eradicate the latter.

  37. Slowly, ever so slowly, people are beginning to accept the true nature of the problem. Paris has not shocked me, but many of those who have called me (an inside South Africa anti-Apartheid activist) a racist bigot are stunned. Their firm conviction that the problem was supposed disadvantage and white bigotry is steadily being eroded. I’m not a Sikhaphobe or a Hinduaphobe or a Bhuddismaphobe or an anti-Semite, but if being an Islamaphobe is to recognise that the evil, barbaric Islamic cult is the greatest threat to world peace, then it is a badge I’ll happily wear.

  38. There are probably enough of these people to pull off one stunt per weekend somewhere in Europe for the next year or so. No way the security services can handle that size of threat. It also looks like they’ve switched to provo-style uncoordinated tactics – no one who gets caught knows enough to take down anyone other than their immediate associates.

    So you can easily create dozens of independent martyr cells in Syria, and ship them among “refugees” to Europe.

    What saved us in the past from more frequent atrocities was the extremely short supply of deathwish jihadis, their four-lions incompetence, and the security services being able to neutralise the majority of them before the attack.

    All of those have now changed. The multiple attacks every week in Iraq and Syria combined with the open-door policy means a shift in theatre is easy. Why blow people up Baghdad when you could blow people up Berlin? ISIS are clearly competent, well organised, and likely to give good training..

    Their only logistic challenge is getting hold of weapons. The latest arrest in Germany hints that they are buying them from Europe-based gangsters.

  39. “Not shocked enough to do anything about it. The Muslim community has a gross defect which only they can fix.”

    What do you suggest his Muslim friends do?

    The nice thing about ISIS is that it’s more like a nation-state than most terrorist groups. There’s an interesting article here:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    Which suggests that a competently executed Iraq-style invasion might actually help. Of course, it might not, and “competently executed” seems to be difficult to achieve.

  40. @MatthewL

    This was the conversation I was having earlier: ISIS is sufficiently like a state to engage like a state. Bombs away, decapitate the leadership, pancake all the infrastructure and hand it over to some sensible looking locals to run. If they turn out to be nuts, rinse, repeat and continue until the message gets through.

    If (say) Hungary were behaving like ISIS the tanks would have gone in after Charlie Hebdo. If not before.

  41. ‘There are probably enough of these people to pull off one stunt per weekend somewhere in Europe for the next year or so.’

    There are enough to do one every hour everywhere. There are millions of them in Europe today.

  42. ‘What do you suggest his Muslim friends do?’

    Not my job, monn. They are a death cult whose scripture says accept Islam or die. I have no idea how they are going to fix it. I doubt they want to. He is friends with people whose scripture says to kill him.

    Radical Muslims want to kill you now; moderate Muslims can wait.

    “You knew I was a snake when you picked me up.”

  43. The only essential difference between the creeds of Islam and Nazism is that the former’s status as a declared religion puts it beyond all criticism.

    Neo-Nazis really have missed a trick here by not declaring Hitler their god since, were they to do so, we’d very soon be treated to pious articles in the Guardian fretting about knee-jerk Naziphobia; and people like our friend Rob here telling us what ignorant bigots we all are for our broad-brush condemnation of Nazism, since it is an acknowledged fact that only a tiny minority of Nazis actually machine-gun members of the public.

  44. “Not my job, monn.”

    That’s a cop-out. If you’re complaining that they’re not doing anything shouldn’t you at least offer a suggestion?

    “They are a death cult whose scripture says accept Islam or die.”

    Anti-semites say the same thing about the Torah. Yes, Islam needs a reformation, but blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks is like blaming all Christians for abortion clinic bombings.

    The real problem with Islam is that it’s so decentralised that whoever happens to be the most charismatic preacher in the local area can define his own flavour of Islam and get followers. Maybe we should start knocking the radical preachers off, but that’s awfully close to imposing the death penalty for opinions we disagree with.

  45. “If they are willing, we should pay them handsomely to return to an Islamic country.” Why do that when we can resettle them in South Georgia?

  46. “that’s awfully close to imposing the death penalty for opinions we disagree with”

    and that’s the radical preacher’s job, apparently

  47. If “most Christians” gave silent assent to such bombings, and never helped put a stop to them, your comparison would carry weight. And if that’s not how most Moslems behave, they’re doing a good job of hiding it.

  48. @MatthewL

    “Maybe we should start knocking the radical preachers off, but that’s awfully close to imposing the death penalty for opinions we disagree with.”

    How is a mullah calling for action different from a general (or politician, for that matter) issuing an order? Are not the top brass legitimate targets?

    Genuine question

  49. The only essential difference between the creeds of Islam and Nazism is that the former’s status as a declared religion puts it beyond all criticism.

    That’ll be why the left don’t dare to attack Christianity.

    No, Islam’s hatred of Western culture is what puts it beyond all criticism. The only difference between ISIS and Western SJWs is their tactics; they both have the same goal. Destroying everything that remains of Western culture.

    That’s why SJWs can demand the right to gay marriage out of one side of their mouth, and yell ‘hate speech’ from the other when someone criticizes Islam for throwing gay men off tall buildings.

    As for Muslim friends, about the only people I ever heard complain about mass Muslim immigration to the UK were my Muslim friends, because they’d fled their own countries decades ago to get away from the very people the British government were importing en mass. And they were scared of what would happen when British people finally had enough and the backlash hit them, too.

  50. A number of measures are called for:

    *An end to ALL muslim immigration to the UK. Boot the Syrians back to camps In the middle-east. No more muslim migrants EVER.

    * Muslims lose the vote both local and national. That will prevent any kind of political power block and will do huge damage to ZaNu. No more Jack Straw’s is an added bonus. In addition ALL future migrants regardless of ethnic origin get no voting rights until the family have been in the country 100 years.

    *No more mosques built at all. A permanent ban.

    *Halal meat banned and the slaughterhouses shut down. No import of same allowed.

    *No more than two kids per Islamic family. Start with no more social security for more than 2 kids for anyone. Anyone having more kids will get no more money. If Islamic a 3rd kid also means the money for the first 2 will be stopped as well. Their numbers must decline along with the natives not grow to enable demographic takeover.

    *A £25000 payment for any RoP follower who leaves the UK permanently with his family. Severe penalties for any attempt to return.

    The message will get around. That the UK is not an environment in which the RoP can flourish.

    Of course–unless the left are smashed the above will do no good.

  51. No more mosques built at all. A permanent ban.

    The left will immediately jump up and shout ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!’

    The fundamental problem is not really Muslim nutcases, it’s their left-wing enablers.

  52. Muslim extremism is a problem we need to deal with, but let’s try not to throw our freedoms out the window in the process.

    “How is a mullah calling for action different from a general (or politician, for that matter) issuing an order? Are not the top brass legitimate targets?”

    That’s a good question. It depends how closely you can link the mullahs to the terrorists. Maybe start locking up or bumping off the ones whose followers go on to commit a terrorist attack? I’d be fine with an offence of preaching a sermon which leads to a serious crime.

  53. By the way, there are plenty of Muslims who don’t support this and are prepared to say so, even ones on an exposed platform:

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/991351/muslims-all-over-the-world-condemn-terrorism-express-solidarity-with-french/

    The head of Sunni Islam’s leading seat of learning Cairo’s Al-Azhar on Saturday condemned “hateful” attacks and urged global unity against extremism.

    “We denounce this hateful incident,” Ahmed al-Tayyeb told a conference in comments broadcast by Egyptian state television. “The time has come for the world to unite to confront this monster.”

  54. @MatthewL

    ““How is a mullah calling for action different from a general (or politician, for that matter) issuing an order? Are not the top brass legitimate targets?”

    That’s a good question. It depends how closely you can link the mullahs to the terrorists. Maybe start locking up or bumping off the ones whose followers go on to commit a terrorist attack? I’d be fine with an offence of preaching a sermon which leads to a serious crime.”

    Cheers- and I think that some form of linking is a prerequisite, lest we end up reapering merely stupid goatherders, as opposed to the generally dangerous. There’s a bit of personal history here for me, but it’s essential to make that distinction. The stupid are just that, it’s the malicious that worry me.

  55. john square: Yes, I agree that linking is necessary. Otherwise, to use your analogy, it’s like bumping off a retired general or an out-of-office politician.

  56. ‘Anti-semites say the same thing about the Torah. Yes, Islam needs a reformation, but blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks is like blaming all Christians for abortion clinic bombings.’

    The subject is Islam. Not Judaism nor Christianity. Your equivocation is junk.

  57. “hand it over to some sensible looking locals to run.”

    A better idea would be to keep the territory and run it as a colony producing oil. Setting up weak corrupt governments in the middle east is a waste of time.

  58. “Muslim extremism is a problem we need to deal with, but let’s try not to throw our freedoms out the window in the process.”

    Attacking Islam does not damage “our” freedoms because Islam is not a part of us. Freedom is not compatible with Islam

  59. “Alex – you want to eradicate all Muslims?
    I am right wing, just not far right.”

    That’s not far right. I am not suggesting killing anybody, simply wiping their religion of the face of the earth. Not difficult if you put your mind to it. How many people still worship the Roman gods?

  60. So Much For Subtlety

    john square – “Also: looks like Hollande is pissed. Act of war, says he.”

    Unfortunately we have seen this film before – France inevitably surrendered by the fifth week.

    Matthew L – “And your demonising of every Muslim is counter-productive.”

    What is the evidence of that precisely? What has your policy of spineless bending over to take another one up the ar$e got us exactly? Except more gang rapes, more Muslim immigration, millions of pounds going to fund these terror networks and everyone but Muslim extremists being arrested?

  61. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “By the way, there are plenty of Muslims who don’t support this and are prepared to say so, even ones on an exposed platform”

    16% of French Muslims support ISIS. One in six.

    “The head of Sunni Islam’s leading seat of learning Cairo’s Al-Azhar on Saturday condemned “hateful” attacks and urged global unity against extremism.”

    Al-Azhar has little credibility with ordinary Muslims because, like all the other official Muslim institutions, it has been taken over the by the State which appoints and dismisses the staff. It is required to support whatever the government of Egypt is doing that day. So it opposed peace with Israel as unIslamic until Sadat went to Jerusalem where apon it started to support peace with Israel.

    At the moment the Egyptian government is fighting the Muslim Brotherhood. So it is required to denounce. No doubt it says something else in private.

  62. Oh go and fuck yourself, SMFS. And it’s spelt “arse”, bowdlerising it just makes you look silly. The fact is that there’s 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and we can’t wall ourselves off from them. We have to learn to live with them.

    “16% of French Muslims support ISIS. One in six.”

    And so 84% of French Muslims don’t support them. Are you going to deport them as well? Collective punishment isn’t supposed to be something that civilised nations do.

    And before you say we shouldn’t have let them in in the first place, there’s been significant numbers of Muslims in England for 300 years. There’s no simple solution to dealing with extremists.

  63. ‘And your demonising of every Muslim is counter-productive.’

    Counter productive to what ?!?! The destruction of the West?

    Every Muslim believes in the book that says “submit or die.” I think that enlightening. You think it “counter productive!”

    The “friend” has one choice: leave Islam. Everyone who believes one should not be required under penalty of death to be Muslim should leave Islam.

  64. Also muslim condemnation of this outrage needs to be looked at tactically.

    They were being given their own VE day on a plate by Fatcow and the rest. An invasion facilitated and paid for by its victims. This gang of killer fuckwits have now put the whole caper into doubt by their premature actions. “Get your troops ashore before you kick off the war” so to speak. This action is actually hugely counter-productive to their evil cause. I suspect that is likely just as much a reason for condemnation from islamics as any concern for kuffiers.

    PS-Tim–the post previews below the comments have vanished. Is this supposed to be or a fault?

  65. Matthew l–Buggeroff.

    Have there hellaslike been significant numbers of muslims in this country for 300 years. Unless you mean the fucking North African pirates who raided the coasts for white slaves and plunder as late as the 18th century.

    There maybe no simple way to deal with extremists. They is also no simple way to deal with grovelers and arse-kissing apologists for evil either. So lets deal with all of them. And esp the scum of the left who are the reason there are several million islamics here instead of the few thousands there were in the 1950s.

  66. “Have there hellaslike been significant numbers of muslims in this country for 300 years.”

    Indians actually, who crewed ships coming back from the early days of the East India Company and then settled in the ports afterwards. Then in the late 1800s significant numbers of Yemenis started showing up after Aden became an important base.

  67. Gamecock:

    http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/zionist-subterfuge.html

    the Talmud and the Torah are the prime motivators of human evil in the world, the heart of demented darkness in human history. So the disingenuous protestations of Jews and Jew wannabes who wish to be either excluded or concealed from the blame of Israelis for being the ugliest and least trustworthy people in the world — all because of their demonstrably insane religion — don’t resonate in my ears anymore.

    Replace Jew with Muslim and how is that different from what you’re saying?

    I think Islam is complete bullshit, personally, and too many people follow the idiotic parts, but the percentage of actual terrorists is so small that clearly there’s something other than their holy book motivating them. I don’t know what it is. The usual lefty answer of “poverty and US bombing” is obviously crap, but “it’s just Islam” is almost as stupid.

  68. “Counter productive to what ?!?! The destruction of the West?”

    Islamic terrorism isn’t going to destroy the West. We might destroy ourselves if we overreact to it – by, for example, attempting some form of ethnic cleansing.

  69. I think it may well be time to consider applying Churchills approach to German Jews coming to Britain to the current spate of refugees.

  70. “The fact is that there’s 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and we can’t wall ourselves off from them. We have to learn to live with them.”

    Why can’t we wall ourselves off from them? We don’t have to allow Islam in Europe.

    “And before you say we shouldn’t have let them in in the first place, there’s been significant numbers of Muslims in England for 300 years. There’s no simple solution to dealing with extremists.”

    And? This isn’t any reason not to start moving muslims out of Europe and stopping any more from coming here. Islam is barbarism. We don’t have to live with that.

  71. Again, Islam is not civilised and so applying different standards in our dealings with Islam does not destroy our freedoms. Islam is not any part of us.

  72. “The fact is that there’s 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and we can’t wall ourselves off from them. We have to learn to live with them.”

    MatthewL, why do we have to learn to live with them? Surely it should be the other way around? It is the muslim that hates our way of life, our freedom of association, our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion and all the other freedoms our grandparents and great grandparents fought to maintain.

    No, the muslim must learn to live with us. We have been too tolerant for far too long. If they can’t live with us and our values then they are free to return to the third world shithole whence they came.

  73. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “The fact is that there’s 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and we can’t wall ourselves off from them. We have to learn to live with them.”

    Actually we can and should wall ourselves off from them. Israel has. India is in the process of doing so. It is a very successful policy. We do not have to learn to live with them. They are not trying to live with us after all.

    “And so 84% of French Muslims don’t support them. Are you going to deport them as well? Collective punishment isn’t supposed to be something that civilised nations do.”

    No. So 84% of them say something else to the nice White people in authority who may or may not report them to the police. That one is six is the one in six brave enough to defy the cultural expectations of the authoritarian sh!tholes they come from and so give an honest answer.

    Yes. Deport them all. Isn’t it? Israel did and that looks fairly civilised. Britain used to. The Cajuns did not end up in Louisiana by accident. But let’s be fair – we can agree not to deport all those that will agree deporting the Greeks from Turkey and Egypt, the Jews and pied noir from Algeria, the Jews from Arabia by Muhammed, and the non-Muslims from Pakistan was morally wrong. And will agree that the Jewish Israeli population, which has been there longer than most British Muslims have been in the UK, should be allowed to stay.

    “And before you say we shouldn’t have let them in in the first place, there’s been significant numbers of Muslims in England for 300 years. There’s no simple solution to dealing with extremists.”

    Six Yemeni sailors is not a significant number. There were significant numbers of Jews and pied noir in Algeria. Where are they now? There is a simple solution – separation. It is the only solution that works.

    I notice that you utterly failed to answer the question.

    Matthew L – “Replace Jew with Muslim and how is that different from what you’re saying?”

    We had exactly the same problem with Jews. Well, the Romans did. They solved it too. Once the Jews were on the other end of the righteous violence of Europe, they decided they would have to get on with us and things have been better ever since.

    “but the percentage of actual terrorists is so small that clearly there’s something other than their holy book motivating them.”

    The PIRA never had many active members. But they did have the passive support of their communities. ISIL does not even have passive support. It has had a tidal wave of support from European Muslims. And if they won’t make a clear distinction between the terrorists and the rest, why should we?

    “but “it’s just Islam” is almost as stupid.”

    Yeah because people are never motivated by what they actually believe. They are motivated by the random movements of astrological bodies.

    Matthew L – “Islamic terrorism isn’t going to destroy the West. We might destroy ourselves if we overreact to it – by, for example, attempting some form of ethnic cleansing.”

    The Muslims sit in cities founded by Westerners that used to be great centres of Christianity and worship in Churches built by Christians. There are virtually no mosques that are now Churches. The West is strong but we have not turned that into dominance. Instead Islam continues to expand and continues to enslave, murder and brutalise every other religion it can.

    Anne Coulter was right.

  74. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “Because we’re better than them. Isn’t that the point?”

    Your argument is really that White people are better than Brown people? This is what you have been reduced to?

    No we are not. They are people. We are people. They want to survive and to raise their children their own way. So do we. They do not want to be murdered. Nor do we. There is a simple solution that can make both sides happy.

  75. Your argument is really that White people are better than Brown people?

    Oh dear you’re getting confused again. No, that’s your argument. My argument is that democratic societies that broadly respect fundamental freedoms and rights, etc, are better than what the jihadists claim to want.

  76. ” My argument is that democratic societies that broadly respect fundamental freedoms and rights, etc, are better than what the jihadists claim to want.”

    So why didn’t we respect the rights and freedoms of the 90% of the German population who were not Nazis? At the peak of Hitler’s power there were 8m members of the Nazi party, out of a population of 80m. Why did we kill millions of Germans, most of whom didn’t vote for Hitler, probably didn’t like him or his party, or the way things were going?

    The answer is obvious, or rather it should be, even to a useful idiot like you. Once a certain virus of extremist behaviour has infected a population, be that a geographical one, or in this case a religious one, the only solution is to destroy the host population, in order to destroy the virus. There is no other solution. Anything else results in your own destruction. There will be no Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, or Human Rights in the West if we do not destroy Islam in its current form, or at the very least isolate ourselves from it such that it eventually destroys itself, leaving us unaffected.

    The thing is, the longer people like you resist any moves against Islam, however minor, the worse the eventual solution will be. We can solve the problem currently with no bloodshed, by strict controls on who comes here, who may stay here, and what they may do while they do live here (rather like Saudi Arabia, how odd). No-one needs to die. They can just choose to live here under our rules or go and live in an Islamic country under those rules, a free choice. We’ll even pay for them to go if they like. If we don’t implement these sort of measures, it will eventually come to bloodshed, the mass rounding up of Muslims, camps, expulsions, fighting and death.

    People like you are sowing the seeds of the destruction of the things you hold most dear, and you can’t see it, or won’t.

  77. Jim,

    So why didn’t we respect the rights and freedoms of the 90% of the German population who were not Nazis? At the peak of Hitler’s power there were 8m members of the Nazi party, out of a population of 80m. Why did we kill millions of Germans, most of whom didn’t vote for Hitler, probably didn’t like him or his party, or the way things were going?

    1. At the time, we were engaged in a total war with an entity capable of destroying our civilisation. Are you one of the jihadists, that you want people to believe the narrative of total war with Islam and Britain is under such a threat as it was from Nazi Germany?

    2. In fact the great British public did question things like area bombings of German cities near the end of the war and there was serious criticism of the tactic of ‘terror bombing’. IIRC Churchill distanced himself to some extent from Dresden.

    3. We didn’t kill every last German man, woman or child. Are you saying we should have?

    Once a certain virus of extremist behaviour has infected a population, be that a geographical one, or in this case a religious one, the only solution is to destroy the host population, in order to destroy the virus.

    Ironically reminiscent of Nazi propaganda.

  78. Spinning out the argument in Jim’s post- I feel that the central tenet of his points (and the parallel with Nazi Germany) is this:

    “If you have an enemy that is hell-bent on destroying or subjugating you and your culture, any compromise on your part is simply trying to postpone the inevitable”

    Which I can’t pick fault in.

    Also: haven’t ISIS had a pop at the Lebanese, Russians (!) and the French in under a fortnight? Looks like they are already committed to fighting a total war. And shit- attacking the Russians with Putin in the driving seat: that’s destabilising a he’ll of a lot more than some dusty corner of the Middle East.

  79. “1. At the time, we were engaged in a total war with an entity capable of destroying our civilisation. Are you one of the jihadists, that you want people to believe the narrative of total war with Islam and Britain is under such a threat as it was from Nazi Germany?”

    Islam is much more dangerous than Nazism

  80. “Are you one of the jihadists, that you want people to believe the narrative of total war with Islam and Britain is under such a threat as it was from Nazi Germany?”

    Yes. Unrestrained Islamic immigration into the West, coupled with the usual suspects (ie people like you) bending over backwards to given them exactly what they want once here, will inevitably result in the destruction of everything you hold dear – the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the removal of religion from public life, the freedom of individuals to run their lives unfettered by religious dogma, the destruction of the Human Rights you wish to grant the Muslims.

    You can already see it. You have people parading the streets untouched calling for beheadings, you have Muslims creating their own zones of influence, demanding Sharia law, demanding that they be given ( and pretty much already have) the protection of the law to make their religion untouchable by criticism. You have Muslims getting control of the State in places and using them for their own purposes, in Tower Hamlets they had an entire council at their control, in Birmingham many schools. All these things if you had said 30 years ago they would have said you were mad, yet they have come to pass. Only a few brave folk saw what was coming (Ray Honeyford for one) and they were hounded out of public life (by people like you) as a consequence.

    Why can you not see what is coming? Why is your head stuck in the sand? I think that because the proponents of this fascist philosophy are predominantly brown skinned your liberal mentality goes into a system overload and cannot compute – brown skinned people are supposed to be the ‘good guys’ and the white folks the ‘bad guys’ in your world view, and something that works against this just blows your fuses. I guarantee that if Muslims were white skinned and blonde haired you’d be out there with every other SJW on marches demanding the authorities lock them all up and protect everyone from such obvious right wing fascists. But because they aren’t white you fawn all over them like a besotted lover.

    For f*cks sake get a grip man.

  81. And regarding the other two parts to your comments, the destruction of Dresden did of course cause a few of the usual suspects to go all hangwringingly pro-Nazi all of a sudden. Such people never miss an opportunity to bash their own side, even when they are trying to defeat one of the greatest forces for evil that Europe has ever seen. I don’t see anyone complaining about Uncle Joe’s attitude in the East, where the only good German was dead one. No-one did more to defeat Nazi Germany than the Red Army and they did more unethical things while doing so in one month than the Western Allies did in the entire war. When you are fighting a war of survival its your opponent or you. How you win is irrelevant, you can argue afterwards if the ends justified the means, if you win that is. If you lose you’re in chains or dead so its a moot point.

    And secondly, no we didn’t kill every last German. But we did set out our war aims early on, unconditional surrender. And prosecuted the war until we got it, regardless of the effect it had on the German people. They had yoked themselves to a madman with a philosphy of terror, and they suffered as a consequence. And when we won, we (at least the Western Allies) were magnanimous in victory. To the extent that the two nations we defeated are now two of the most wealthy in the world. And no-one in post war Germany could have any idea of ever trying to create a Greater Germany again, because of what half the world had done to defeat them just a few years earlier. To the extent that Germany is now one of the most pacifist nations around. OK, they throw their weight around economically, but they seem to have lost the urge to invade and subjugate other nations any more, so some good has resulted out of all the suffering from 1933 to 1945.

    You appear to doubt that we in fact have any moral superiority to Islam, and thus disagree that we should attempt to destroy it. You equate our civilisation with theirs, and thats why you cannot face any moves (however small) against it.

  82. Looks like they are already committed to fighting a total war.

    “total war” means when entities of the scale of nations commit pretty much all their resources (e.g. industrial output) to war – it doesn’t mean an entity trying to start fights with all the other entities.

  83. You appear to doubt that we in fact have any moral superiority to Islam, and thus disagree that we should attempt to destroy it. You equate our civilisation with theirs, and thats why you cannot face any moves (however small) against it.

    My argument is that democratic societies that broadly respect fundamental freedoms and rights, etc, are better than what the jihadists claim to want. – me, in this thread, November 15, 2015 at 10:37 am.

  84. And regarding the other two parts to your comments, the destruction of Dresden did of course cause a few of the usual suspects to go all hangwringingly pro-Nazi all of a sudden.

    Yeah, that handwringing, pro-Nazi Churchill.

  85. “My argument is that democratic societies that broadly respect fundamental freedoms and rights, etc, are better than what the jihadists claim to want. – ”

    And thats why we have to fight to preserve those fundamental freedoms from the people who want to destroy them, FFS!!!! The very fact that our civilisation is better is the reason to destroy the inferior one. Not the people necessarily, hopefully not, but the ideas and the people who are behind those ideas. And once things get to a certain stage (which we are past) we have to have actions. Words are no longer good enough, not least because people like you wish to proscribe anyone from criticising Islam and calling them racist if they do. We need actions now to prevent Muslims from taking over any more of our cultural space, and to reverse the flow such that any Muslim who wants to live here lives in our cultural space, not theirs. If they want that, they can go and live in an Islamic country, which strangely they don’t want to do.

  86. @ukliberty

    ““total war” means when entities of the scale of nations commit pretty much all their resources (e.g. industrial output) to war – it doesn’t mean an entity trying to start fights with all the other entities.”

    Yes, I know that. I was pointing out that picking a fight on three fronts (esp when one is russia) is committing yourself to total war.

    Although if ISIS spent anything on anything aside from war prior to November, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what it was?

  87. The time is coming for people like UKL to step aside. This nonsense is becoming literally irrelevant.

    ISIS will have to be defeated, which means sending men and killing them (and suffering casualties). ISIS ‘members’ here will need to be identified and dealt with.

    The main difficulty in fighting ISIS will be in indentifying them in an otherwise non combatant population, not least because we’ll have The Guardian and the BBC blowing every civilian casualty into a massive story. No exaggeration, we’d have lost WW2 if we’d had the scrutiny then.

    Jim made a very good point which UKL ignored – if Muslims had (generally) blond hair and fair skin then s/he would vociferously criticise their various odd beliefs and behaviour (I think all Islamic countries treat apostasy as a crime, some punishable by death; almost all treat women and gays and liberals badly; almost all have draconian punishments for crime). But they are brown so he doesn’t. It’s a kind of racism that holds brown people to lower standards.

    This country and western civilisation, deeply flawed as they are, are superior to any other there has yet been, and are worth fighting for. Those who don’t want to fight for them need to get out of the way and leave it to those who do.

  88. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “Oh dear you’re getting confused again. No, that’s your argument. My argument is that democratic societies that broadly respect fundamental freedoms and rights, etc, are better than what the jihadists claim to want.”

    Umm no I am not. You said that we (the indigenous population of Britain) are better than them (the people I want to deport – the non-indigenous peoples of these isles). I agree that democratic societies are better than what the jihadists claim to want. But democratic societies are not possible with non-northern-European peoples. Especially not with Muslims. Not in the long run. If we want to remain democratic we need to remain indigenous.

    Even if we deported everyone who had wrongly been given citizenship since 1945, and their descendents, we would still be a better society than what the jihadis want – and we would have a good chance of remaining that way.

  89. @Interested: I’d be quite prepared to bet that UKL’s views on evangelical Christians are not very positive, due to their (alleged) homophobic attitudes, and patriarchal views on the role of women in society. This despite no evangelicals having ever stoned any homosexuals to death, or executed anyone for apostasy or treated their women as second class citizens. But then evangelicals are rather white, so its OK to criticise their religious views. Brown folk on the other hand………..

  90. john square, sorry – I misread your post.
    _______

    Jim,

    …people like you… …people like you… …people like you… …people like you… …people like you…

    Try not to attribute opinions to me that I haven’t expressed, there’s a chap.

    Interested,

    Jim made a very good point which UKL ignored – if Muslims had (generally) blond hair and fair skin then s/he would vociferously criticise their various odd beliefs and behaviour (I think all Islamic countries treat apostasy as a crime, some punishable by death; almost all treat women and gays and liberals badly; almost all have draconian punishments for crime). But they are brown so he doesn’t.

    I do criticise apostasy as a crime, dreadful treatment of women and gays and draconian punishments, no matter who does it, the colour of their skin is irrelevant.

    Guys, try to argue with what I write, rather than what you have unreasonably inferred, yeah? Or at least ask, “what do you think of apostasy as a crime and badly treating women and gays when Muslims do it?”

  91. SMFS,

    Umm no I am not. You said that we (the indigenous population of Britain) are better than them (the people I want to deport – the non-indigenous peoples of these isles).

    We are better than the terrorists, is what I meant.

    Perhaps that was unclear – now I hope it is clear.

  92. “Try not to attribute opinions to me that I haven’t expressed, there’s a chap.”

    So you agree with Ray Honeyford then? You stood up for him when he was villified for his views back in the 80s? You don’t agree with people who wish to criminalise criticism of Islam, to treat it with kid gloves? Your views on evangelical Christians are wholly positive?

  93. One thing worth remembering: Islamist atrocities in Europe are rare, and with unexceptional body counts, 9/11 excepted.

    Outside Europe, these events are constant and this has been going on since long before Bush and Blair. When the target isn’t non-Muslims, then it’s Sunni v Shiite.

    We might usefully ask why Islamists generally steer clear of Western targets, albeit with the occasional reminder. Maybe, the War on Terror generated some fear.

  94. ‘Replace Jew with Muslim and how is that different from what you’re saying?’

    Ignoratio elenchi.

    ‘I think Islam is complete bullshit, personally, and too many people follow the idiotic parts, but the percentage of actual terrorists is so small that clearly there’s something other than their holy book motivating them. I don’t know what it is.’

    100% of Muslims believe in submit or die. That all aren’t acting on it today buys us no protection. Look your Muslim friends in the eye and understand they believe you must submit or die. Westerners have no paradigm for this; we can’t comprehend it. That doesn’t make it false; it makes us chumps.

  95. Jim,

    So you agree with Ray Honeyford then? You stood up for him when he was villified for his views back in the 80s? You don’t agree with people who wish to criminalise criticism of Islam, to treat it with kid gloves? Your views on evangelical Christians are wholly positive?

    I’ve never heard of Honeyford.
    I oppose the criminalisation of criticism, including criticism of Islam. Free speech should extend to criticism of religion.
    I have no “wholly” positive views about anyone, including evangelical Christians, loved ones, myself, homo sapiens.

  96. Yet, S2, the weapons grade, wet twat who is the current Australian PM had this to say:

    “Claims by the terrorist group, by Daesh or ISIL speaking in the name of God or in the name of Islam, are absolutely blasphemous” he said. “Their leaders, they do not speak in the name of Islam, they defame Islam, they are an abomination.”

    Like he’d know. This denial of the firm Islamic foundations of ISIS is not helping. We need to debate with Muslims as to why they believe what they do. Why do they believe that a brutal warlord was chosen by a god to be his messenger? People need to be free to ask questions such as these without being accused of being Islamaphobes or having a visit from plod. Many modern Muslims prefer to pretend that Mohammad was not the killing, robbing, enslaving despot that he was. We need to be free to confront them with the true nature of Mohammad. For me, Islam is such a self-evidently preposterous cult that I cannot respect its followers and certainly don’t expect it to have any impact on my life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *