Holy buggery

A terrorist gunman killed 84 people and wounded scores when he drove a heavy truck at high speed into a crowd watching Bastille Day fireworks in the French Riviera city of Nice late on Thursday.

The driver was shot dead after barrelling the truck two kilometres (1.3 miles) through the festive crowd on the palm-lined Promenade des Anglais, sending hundreds fleeing in terror and leaving the area strewn with bodies.

140 thoughts on “Holy buggery”

  1. And there’s the problem with gun control. When you can kill 84 people with a truck, why bother jumping through the hoops to get a gun.

  2. The BBC covering itself in glory by already spending more broadcast time explaining why its nothing to do with Islam rather than thoughts for the innocent victims. And then to cap it all, on radio, explaining that people fled in terror during the attack, they then play an audio capture of people screaming. Seriously!

  3. I expect he was one of those Tunisian Methodists.

    A French/Tunisian man from Nice who shouted “Allahu Akbar”?

    Now it’s just a guess at this stage, but it might be that we’ve come across one of these incredibly rare occurrences, an outlier of almost infinitesimally small probability where a member of the Religion of Peace is not very peaceful.

    The Religion of Peace must be having an awful time of it at the moment, with all it’s people abandoning their faith because of it’s inherent violence. It looks like the Islamic reformation can’t finish soon enough.

    😐

  4. I woke up this morning to read about this atrocity and I was in a state of shock. Then I saw some artists had produced some cutesy cartoons and various global monuments had been lit up in the colours of the Tricolor, and so I could relax again.

  5. Tim Newman: I won’t rest easy until I’ve seen some temporary Facebook profile picture changes.

  6. Time to nuke Mecca (after giving fair warning of course)! Either their god will save it or they’ll only have a glowing heap in the desert to point their arses away from in prayer.

  7. It’s all the fault of Donald Trump and Brexit – like MatthewL I am waiting for ‘Je suis Nice’ hashtags and the French flag over people’s Facebook profiles which will certainly stop any future attacks until I feel secure

  8. Ljh: While I’m all in favour of destroying religious monuments with nuclear fire, do you honestly think that will make the West any safer? Or are you just virtue-signalling?

  9. “Tim Newman: I won’t rest easy until I’ve seen some temporary Facebook profile picture changes.”

    Already happening. Pathetic beyond belief.

    France is fucked, yet yesterday the issue was Boris Johnson and Brexit. These are the early stages of a decade long religiously motivated insurgency in France, and the political class lacks the awareness, bottle and even ideology to win it.

    It’s hard to win a war if you hate your own side.

  10. I do think the time is coming when some politician will make the case that every time one of these attacks happens we will identify the mosque attended by the perpetrator, jail or expel (if non citizens) its preachers, expel all noncitizen attendees, raze the building to the ground, seize all of its funds and distribute them to the families of victims.

    Peaceful Muslims attending mosques with no issues of “radicalisation” would have nothing to fear from this, and indeed I would have thought would welcome it as there is probably not much worse than being a happily French Muslim in France at the moment.

    Additionally, anyone displaying an ISIS flag or openly sympathising with these scumbags on FaceBook or Twitter gets an automatic 10 years, no questions asked, on our new open-air prison camp on South Georgia. True, this would turn into something of a university for Islamism but we would counter this risk by requiring former inmates to spend a further 10 years on a settlement in South Georgia where they are free to wander around the islands as long as they pledge allegiance to the UK flag each morning and issue a daily denunciation of AQ, ISIS and all the rest.

    Ironman will say that this is racist, of course.

  11. The Meissen Bison

    Matthew L: Or are you just virtue-signalling?

    I pass on for what it’s worth this advice from a great savant whose name temporarily escapes me but who suggested that before asking someone else this question one should first ask oneself “am I being a pillock?”

  12. Mathew L – going to war never makes you safer at first. It’s a long term thing. Don’t worry, it will mostly be left to men to handle.

  13. Believers bash their heads towards Mecca five times a day; they are careful not to fart, pee or shit in that direction; they are obliged to make pilgrimage there at least once; is the compass for its murderous totalitarian cult. Removing Mecca might convince RoP’s more rational adherents that Allah the “merciful” “all powerful” is crap.

  14. Trump was on the right lines, albeit probably for the wrong reasons. The only people that are going to sort out these Islamist nutters are other Muslims: Islam has to get its own house in order. One way to bring this about is to hit the real power-brokers in Islam – the politicians of Muslim countries, the businessmen, the ones who are bankrolling the mosques, etc. – in the pocket and to make their lives as inconvenient as possible. The easiest way to do this is a travel ban on Muslims: once the wealthy Saudis find they are blacklisted from travelling, they will start looking long and hard at who they are funding. Once Malaysian and Indonesian and Turkish businessmen find they are not allowed on an aircraft and nobody will process their bank payments, they will start changing who they support politically and what they are prepared to turn a blind eye to.

    Perhaps that isn’t the solution, but the solution – whatever it is – will involve forcing Muslims to get their house in order.

  15. Don’t they believe the Kabbah is divinely protected? A Trident launched at it should put that to the test and they shouldn’t have anything to complain about. Either their God sends angels to protect their cities or their religion is disproved and they can find something else to bang their heads and wail about.

    Also we finally get to use Trident. Win-win.

  16. It is a mistake to believe that we are at war with Islamists, Islam has been at war with everyone else from Mo’s flight from Mecca onwards. Adherents are enslaved by its prohibitions against apostasy and vicious policing of each other to conform and obey. If we pretend otherwise, they will win.

  17. If I’d just been elected to office and soon afterwards something like this occurred, giving me my first opportunity to Say Something publicly, I suppose I would probably say something like, “This is yet another act of savagery by a barbaric death cult which much be destroyed”.

    Don’t think I could put it any higher than that.

    But what to say on the second, third, fourth, etc. occasions?

    I mean, no matter what, at some point, it’s just words. I’d probably say, “Words are insufficient. Action is needed”.

    But then I’d be whistling in the wind.

  18. Repeating something I said earlier, this must be the only time in history that a civilisation that had the means to defend itself against invasion chose instead to surrender.

  19. Repeating something I said earlier, this must be the only time in history that a civilisation that had the means to defend itself against invasion chose instead to surrender.

    Quite. I am struggling to think of another occasion too.

  20. Tim Newman: Sorry but “Islam cleaning its own house” is a non-starter.

    A large percentage–approx. one-fifth by most surveys APPROVE of such outrages. And who knows how many secretly approve but don’t say so. 52% of RoP followers polled over here say they want gays “criminalised” but the Koran says Death –not jail. So forgive a sneaking suspicion that what they actually want is Death but they are holding their real opinions back.

    See below 1.47 onwards–see a large group of RoP fans declare their support for ALL of Allah’s schedule of punishments (per Pat Condell: Death,Death,Death and More Death) and then declare themselves ordinary, everyday “moderate” muslims not extremeists at all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlqXgXwzkPg

  21. Our “civilisation” is not surrendering.

    We have allowed leftist shite into power and propaganda media. They are leading the surrender.

    Smash them and the problem is ended —instantly.

    Hence The Purge.

  22. A large percentage–approx. one-fifth by most surveys APPROVE of such outrages.

    Yes, because there is no downside to their doing so. Stop the movers, shakers, moneymen, and powerbrokers from moving around and operating, and that attitude will start to shift.

  23. This stuff has been around and killing for 14 centuries. They are raised and indoctrinated in it.

    The idea that if we could just can a few bad guys and the menace will go away is nonsense.

  24. I’m not saying can a few bad guys. I’m saying stop the whole damned lot of them travelling and interacting with the rest of the world as much as possible to cause them major inconvenience.

  25. We nesd a line of division between good Muslims and bad. I suggest that one way would be to see if they can criticise their own religion or not: Muslims who can say “I believe in Islam, but the wholesale destruction of the Zoroastrian religion in Iran was morally wrong”, or similar are probably ok.

  26. Bloke in Germany in China

    @Interested, unfortunately it doesn’t work. Israel has been trying it for years. Martyr yourself in Israel, we send a JCB in to the West Bank or Gaza and bulldoze your family’s house, no questions asked. It didn’t work. You just create new martyrs. And it isn’t justice either.

    What does work in Israel is that great big fercking wall. You get in or out of the West Bank only through a checkpoint. Unsurprisingly, it’s dramatically reduced the killings in Israel proper. What is most noteworthy is that the few ongoing attacks are perpetrated by Gazans/West Bankers who manage to slip through the net, not the 20% of Israel’s population that is muslim.

    So they have somehow managed the holy grail [sic] of reducing islamic terrorism to an acceptable minimum while integrating, or perhaps neutralising, the very high (much higher than anywhere in western Europe) proportion of muslims in their own country. Being a first-world technologically advanced democracy has a lot to do with the latter. That argument clearly works well when you are surrounded by decrepit third-world auto/theo/cratic shitholes, perhaps less so in Europe.

  27. It will if the head of the mosque who is firing them up has his funding cut off because his wealthy donors are now reduced to doing their annual shopping sprees in Pakistan.

  28. Bloke in Germany in China

    @Tim, again the solution is impossible. Economically impossible and practically impossible. How do you identify a muslim, especially a rich one that doesn’t want to be identified as such (and points to his four Swedish cabin crew wives as proof?).

    Even Israel doesn’t have a travel ban on muslims, if only because it would paralyse a country where they are a signiificant proportion of the population.

  29. Economically impossible and practically impossible.

    It doesn’t need to capture everyone. Just enough to be a damned nuisance.

    How do you identify a muslim, especially a rich one that doesn’t want to be identified as such (and points to his four Swedish cabin crew wives as proof?).

    Muslims are extremely keen to identify themselves as Muslims and rather unkeen on saying they are not Muslims. So simple: make them sign a declaration on applying for a visa that they are not Muslim. If it then transpires they are (e.g. attendance at a Mosque, religion declared on documents, etc.) and they have lied, then they are banned for life. I think a requirement that Muslims have to sign a written declaration that they are not Muslim would on its own create enough outrage and inconvenience that the real power-brokers in the Muslim world would start to reel in its extreme elements.

  30. Ask yourself, out of all the Muslims you know, how many would be prepared to sign a declaration that they are not Muslim in order to breach a travel restriction. Of the Muslims I know: very few. They’re pretty touchy about this sort of thing.

  31. before asking someone else this question [virtue-signalling] one should first ask oneself “am I being a pillock?”

    Advice that plenty of people here should take.

  32. Bloke in Germany in China

    @Tim,

    It’s that a travel restriction on muslims to pretty much any European country would be such a huge inconvenience to that country that it is not worth the inconvenience caused to the – in 99.999% of cases, innocent targets. And the ones you need to worry about will have no problem signing the declaration.

  33. It’s that a travel restriction on muslims to pretty much any European country would be such a huge inconvenience to that country

    I’m wondering what inconvenience would be caused to European countries by their not allowing Muslims in. And would this inconvenience outweigh the benefits? Hmmm.

    that it is not worth the inconvenience caused to the – in 99.999% of cases, innocent targets

    Which, as Mr Ecks points out, have a large proportion supporting the atrocities. Causing them inconvenience is the whole idea.

    And the ones you need to worry about will have no problem signing the declaration.

    It’s not designed to keep the headcases out: it’s designed to piss off those who support and fund them.

  34. ‘Islam has to get its own house in order.’

    What makes you think they think they have a problem?

    I think it quite odd that some Western nations ban hate speech, but allow Islam.

  35. We could start with a few strategic drone strikes at the Hajj annually. The casualties from the crowd crush would be immense.

  36. Tim Newman, aren’t you forgetting that governments aren’t in favour of collective punishment and never, ever fall back on it as a ….

    Oh. Hang on.

  37. Gamecock: “A man intentionally drives a truck into a crowd; the press describes him as a “gunman.””

    By early accounts, he exchanged gunfire with the police.

  38. What makes you think they think they have a problem?

    Exactly, they don’t. So they need to be made to understand they do.

    ======================

    Not our job. We – the West – should simply ban the practice of Islam and the possession of a Koran in our territories. Violators to be charged with felonious inciting of murder. Under existing law.

    Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. The West must recognize this and take appropriate action. Changing Islam is neither appropriate nor possible.

    Muslims need not be banned, but practice of their “religion” in the West should be.

  39. Gamecock: we should celebrate what makes Western liberal democracies great, no more multicultural abasement:
    Equality before the law, our laws evolved to protect Western liberal democracy so absolutely no nods to shariah at all, no special claims because of minority status, each adult citizen male or female, straight or gay is responsible for their decisions good or bad and deserves to have lives and property protected by the state.
    Freedom of conscience, no group identity, the ability to construct one’s life as an individual with fair access to education and the marketplace, unfettered by Islamic constraint on women, homosexuality or apostasy. Participation in society depends on individual identity therefore no more concealed faces in public places which is an act of provocation against liberal values.
    Freedom of speech: the ability to challenge any idea, offend any group, stopping at incitement to violence.
    Animal welfare: no ritual slaughtering of animals, or distribution of their produce.
    I think the above should liberate at least half the RoP community and encourage the rest to find somewhere more congenial to their chosen way of life.

  40. My first thought when I saw the headlines was “That doesn’t sound like a nice terrorist attack to me”.

  41. Gamecock wins the thread. If you are dumb enough to be a Muslim, you shouldn’t be allowed to live in the West. There are plenty of Islamic shitholes where you can practice your irrational, barbaric, Medieval beliefs.

  42. I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll say it again, as events like this will happen again, we will eventually treat Muslims in the UK in the same way we treated Catholics hundreds of years ago, when we considered them a religiously inspired 5th column waiting for a chance to overthrow the State. Muslims will be forbidden from congregating, from holding any public office, from basically participating in public life whatsoever, maybe even from voting. They will be allowed to live and work here, and live normal lives, but have no say in how the country is run. Then maybe eventually after enough generations have passed such laws could be relaxed.

    Its the only way to protect the rest of the country whilst not rounding people up and putting them in camps or expelling them from the country.

  43. “Time to nuke Mecca (after giving fair warning of course)! Either their god will save it or they’ll only have a glowing heap in the desert to point their arses away from in prayer.”

    The West should indeed use a small nuclear device to destroy Mecca. We should also destroy any other similar Islamic totems, and start expelling Muslims and ban practice of Islam. The destruction of Mecca would hopefully cause a crisis of belief in Islam, and would also trigger action by the hard core of hostile Muslims which could then be eliminated by the military.

    I think given Islam’s complete opposition to civilisation such action is both justified and necessary. There is no dealing with Islam, because all Islam accepts is Islam

  44. “If you are dumb enough to be a Muslim, you shouldn’t be allowed to live in the West. There are plenty of Islamic shitholes where you can practice your irrational, barbaric, Medieval beliefs.”

    Correct. Time to remove Islam from the west

  45. “I think it quite odd that some Western nations ban hate speech, but allow Islam”

    The aim is to demoralise and make resistance difficult for the native population while legitimising agitation and hostility from the invaders.

  46. Another signal we should be sending out is for Sadiq fucking Khan to be removed from office as an enemy of the State

  47. Sharia courts in the UK are simply part of the common law right to freedom of contract. Just the same as the use of rabbinical courts for commercial disputes where parties have agreed to them. Obviously Sharia courts should have no criminal powers or ability to override UK laws. And I’d probably favour UK family law overriding Sharia courts with regard to women’s rights, divorce etc.

    I do rather think that suggesting locking up all Muslims or nuking Mecca are somewhat extreme. I think that most people would consider the persecution of Catholics in the 18th and 19th centuries (and obviously into the 20th in NI) were undesirable.

    I do agree that there are some very unpleasant Muslim people out there – the idiots who praise this bloke:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumtaz_Qadri

    Basically, beliefs like this are really not compatible with living in the West – and I find it shocking that they do not seem to be hiding their beliefs:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14607468.Killer_of_Glasgow_shopkeeper_was_inspired_by_Pakistani_religious_assassin_Mumtaz_Qadri/

    The Imam of the Glasgow Central Mosque praised him as a true muslim. This Imam – if he’s not a UK citizen – should be expelled. And if he is a UK citizen, should be locked up for inciting racial hatred. Anyone who believes stuff like this is basically a bigot and should be treated as such.

  48. “Another signal we should be sending out is for Sadiq fucking Khan to be removed from office as an enemy of the State”

    As members of a hostile culture bent on our destruction, muslims should not be allowed to hold political office and should not be allowed the vote. Or be allowed to live here tbh, but a bit difficult to reverse that now.

  49. “As members of a hostile culture bent on our destruction, muslims should not be allowed to hold political office and should not be allowed the vote. Or be allowed to live here tbh, but a bit difficult to reverse that now.”

    Thats my principle. We can’t physically remove the ones already here without triggering some ‘final solution’ type scenario, so we have to prevent those already here from having any influence over the rest of us. And a sort of political apartheid seems to be the only way. It doesn’t actually prevent anyone from living their life, or running their own business, it just prevents them from having any power over the rest of us, because experience has shown that Islam doesn’t do equality. It does supremacy. Western Liberalism has on the other hand shown itself to be very fair to those it doesn’t necessarily agree with, and I think can be trusted to give Western Muslims a fair deal, a far fairer deal than Islam gives Western Liberalism in Islamic countries.

  50. How’s this for a modest proposal:

    ‘All terrorists killed during attacks to be buried or cremated wrapped in bacon’

  51. Ken: “I find it shocking that they do not seem to be hiding their beliefs”

    Why should they? Nothing happens to them when they express those beliefs.

  52. As Jim says, we’ve had this problem before with Catholics and made them second class citizens for a sufficient period that they abandoned all ideas of subterfuge.

  53. @Ken

    “Obviously Sharia courts should have no criminal powers or ability to override UK laws. And I’d probably favour UK family law overriding Sharia courts with regard to women’s rights, divorce etc”

    Perhaps Sharia courts should be ordered by UK law to make it very clear before any hearing that they have no basis in UK law, no powers under UK law and are non-binding should any participant wish to have recourse to UK law subsequent to any Sharia ruling.

  54. A ban on Islam is the thing to do. No-one cares what Gaia worshippers or somesuch do, but if Satanists set up in your patch and it became clear that they were going to be doing captive sacrifices every now and again there wouldn’t be a Church of Satan in the High St.

    Ban the religion and allow the people to stay, it’s their choice. They’ve been given more than enough chances but living with Islam is playing with fire. We don’t seem to know how dangerous it is because we don’t take religion seriously any more. Islam is from the middle ages and un-reformed and its followers take it very seriously.

    Differentiation is very easy – will you tear a page from a Koran and wipe your arse with it? How I’ve longed for a ‘Prove I’m not a Muslim’ lane at airports. I don’t fly these days by choice, being treated as a criminal/terrorist pisses me off.

    On whether or not to glassify Mecca, it might not achieve much, but why not? The only problem is that you can’t go any further up from there.

  55. BraveFart

    Hear, Hear – on Sadiq Khan – already seems to be considerably worse than Livingstone even and he just grates on the ears. A nasty piece of work!

  56. Ken- seconded. These nuke mecca guys scare me more than the (still very upsetting) risk of being deaded by a religious nutter.
    Agree- shariah courts- if that how you and a.n.other both want to settle your differences then wtf has it got to do with anyone else? Now if it’s not about settling differences but enforcement of religious law its a different thing.

  57. To what extent do we tolerate the intolerant? This old chestnut goes to heart of the matter. Islam is a vilely intolerant religion and political ideology, and all muslims hold some beliefs that the average westerner would find repellent. While some muslims want to wage jihad against us, most muslims would settle for a demographic takeover and colonisation of the West.

    Does the threat that Islam poses to the West justify the taking of illiberal measures against Islam in the UK and elsewhere? I think it does. In effect, there is a low-level war taking place. Yet we have to recognise that taking repressive measures against muslims in Britain would not only feed the narrative of the jihadis, but also make many soggy liberal-minded people uncomfortable as well as enraging the fanatical multi-cultis.

    So I would favour making life more difficult for muslims here in small and not-so-small ways, while providing substantial financial incentives for them to emigrate to Islamic countries. Making life more difficult of muslims in the UK could involve closing mosques with any connection (however small) to jihad and terrorism, banning the burqa in some areas of public life, halting further Islamic immigration, making visa applications for all muslim countries much more stringent, banning the opening of any more mosques, removing accreditation from Islamic financial institutions, closing Islamic schools etc.

    If all this does not work, the next stage would be banning the practice of islam, as gamecock suggests. But that would only ever stand a chance of democratic approval after a series of major terror attacks, and even then the response of many would merely be group hugs and hashtags.

  58. Nuking Mecca types are scary?

    These death cult fucks are acting like they are at war with the West, I don’t think they can actually believe they’re getting away with it, but it works, so keep doing it until it doesn’t.

    Christian England had to burn Catholics at the stake to scare them off. It was barbaric and cruel but it stopped people from declaring as Catholic.
    In modern times we can simply decide that we do not want to take the risk of living with religion driven savages and have them leave as the religion is not indiginous.
    I don’t care what colour you are but experience has shown that Muslims are too dangerous and if you want to come here from a Muslim country you can leave your religion at the door or go elsewhere.

  59. “Now if it’s not about settling differences but enforcement of religious law its a different thing.”

    Er, that’s exactly what Sharia Law is – the enforcement of Islamic Law.

  60. I’ve always said that if a secular group of society was banding together to espouse the principles of Islam without the sky fairy topping they’d be locked up faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

    Thats the long and the short of it, we are allowing a cult with ideals no better than those we fought at great expense from 1939-45 to infiltrate our society and are pretending its not happening.

    And to those who say ‘We can’t use illiberal actions to defend Western Values’ I say this – Was waging an all out total war to defeat and destroy Nazism acceptable? If so, then infinitely less illiberal measures are acceptable now to defend Western Values from Islam.

  61. Incidentally how frequent are these events going to have to become before something will be done? It seems the frequency is rising rapidly. A major Islamic terrorist outrage appears to be happening every 3-6 months in the West now, with smaller attacks more frequently than that. What is the cut off point when the powers that be will finally act?

  62. Rob- nope. Two parties asking for a decision on what is in accordance to religious custom is very different from enforcement of religious law. When shariah courts in Britain start lopping limbs off then we have a problem.

  63. “Christian England had to burn Catholics at the stake to scare them off.” You’ve got that one the wrong way round, matey. It was Roman Catholics that burned heretics. If it happened in the other direction it must have been exceedingly rare.

  64. Nuking mecca is absolutely the way forward because Muslims believe it is protected by their pretend god. Fair warning could be given so nobody that didn’t want to would need to die. For devout Muslims this event would be difficult to deal with as it would show their religion to be false. Many would renounce Islam and many would be plunged into deep despair and existential crisis.

    The next thing to do would be to destroy all middle eastern governments that fund terrorism, eg Saudi Arabia, seize their financial assets, and take over their oil industry. Then build a big wall in south eastern Europe, and start hunting and destroying people smugglers in north Africa, while patrolling the med with frigates and sinking refugee boats.

  65. @BiG

    ‘@Interested, unfortunately it doesn’t work. Israel has been trying it for years. Martyr yourself in Israel, we send a JCB in to the West Bank or Gaza and bulldoze your family’s house, no questions asked. It didn’t work. You just create new martyrs. And it isn’t justice either.’

    I’m not suggesting it’s the only solution, of that it would be a quick fix. There are no quick fixes short of something truly horrific and indiscriminate and personally I don’t want to think about that.

  66. Dearime- err all those schools called the English Martyrs you realised they are Catholic.Tommy More being head of the list.
    tomSmith – This is not a way forward. This is dancing along to loony tunes. Nuke Lourdes and see how many Catholics become atheists. Viscerally you may want this to happen to a group you regard as an enemy but to actually push the button on your ‘solution’ you would have to be insane. Its just total utter crap that aside from criminal would make things much much much worse.

  67. I disagree. A small nuclear weapon could be used to utterly destroy mecca without killing many people.

    The difference between catholics and Muslims is that the latter have a god of war and conquest. Utter destruction of the earthly symbols of that god will have a very different effect than it would on Christianity. If the god of Islam loses then by definition he is not real.

  68. @Ken

    ‘And I’d probably favour UK family law overriding Sharia courts with regard to women’s rights, divorce etc.’

    Probably? That’s big of you Ken!

    @AndrewC

    ‘Perhaps Sharia courts should be ordered by UK law to make it very clear before any hearing that they have no basis in UK law, no powers under UK law and are non-binding should any participant wish to have recourse to UK law subsequent to any Sharia ruling.’
    I think this is a bit naiive. The women who go to sharia courts then go back into their ‘communities’ where they are quite likely to get chopped up and bhuried in landfill if they try to insist on secular rights.

    @Hallowed Be

    ‘Ken- seconded. These nuke mecca guys scare me more than the (still very upsetting) risk of being deaded by a religious nutter.
    Agree- shariah courts- if that how you and a.n.other both want to settle your differences then wtf has it got to do with anyone else?’

    See above.

  69. @Ken

    ‘And I’d probably favour UK family law overriding Sharia courts with regard to women’s rights, divorce etc.’

    Probably? That’s big of you Ken!

    @AndrewC

    ‘Perhaps Sharia courts should be ordered by UK law to make it very clear before any hearing that they have no basis in UK law, no powers under UK law and are non-binding should any participant wish to have recourse to UK law subsequent to any Sharia ruling.’

    I think this is a bit naiive. The women who go to sharia courts then go back into their ‘communities’ where they are quite likely to get chopped up and bhuried in landfill if they try to insist on secular rights.

    @Hallowed Be

    ‘Ken- seconded. These nuke mecca guys scare me more than the (still very upsetting) risk of being deaded by a religious nutter.
    Agree- shariah courts- if that how you and a.n.other both want to settle your differences then wtf has it got to do with anyone else?’

    See above.

  70. @BiGiC

    ‘It’s that a travel restriction on muslims to pretty much any European country would be such a huge inconvenience to that country that it is not worth the inconvenience caused to the – in 99.999% of cases, innocent targets. And the ones you need to worry about will have no problem signing the declaration.’

    I agree re the declaration, but I’m personally getting a bit fed up of the insinuation that because ‘99.999%’ of us are unlikely to be killed by Islamist wankers we should tolerate this kind of shit. We do all sorts of things to protect people from the 0.001% risk of some hideous death (and it can be hideous – the French government have today apparently been exposed as having covered up that Bataclan victims were tortured – eyes gouged out, men castrated, women stabbed in the vagina).

    What the living fuck is it about Islamist terrorism that makes it such a matter for shrugging?

    The French PM has been on about it today – this is just something the French are ‘going to have to learn to live with’ apparently. I believe Obama made simillar remarks post-Orlando.

    Not many kids die of childhood cancers. Kids should learn to live with childhood cancer, should they?

    Not many people die in plane crashes – fewer in France in the last 12 months than at the hands of these utter shitbags. But planes do crash, for a variety of reasons. When it happens, various government agencies swing into action and forensically examine all the evidence to find the precise cause. No one says that plane passengers should learn to live with dying in plane crashes.

    By contrast, our governments and media and various cowardly apologists do everything possible to obfuscate the cause of Islamist terror. Why??

    If our ‘leaders’ put away their security men and their high walls and lived amongst us, enjoying the same vibrant threat levels, I’d take the cunts seriously. Until then, I shall not.

    Talking of cowardly apologist cunts – Ironman bin in?

  71. By contrast, our governments and media and various cowardly apologists do everything possible to obfuscate the cause of Islamist terror. Why??

    Because ‘racism’ is the secular sin in the West.

  72. tomsmith

    Nuking Mecca would be a declaration of war on Saudi Arabia. Quite apart from lowering the nuclear threshold, the destabilising effects of nuking Mecca would be horrendous, and it would unite the entire muslim world against us…with others rallying to their side. If you genuinely believe nuking Mecca is a solution to the threat to the West from Islam, then please see a psychiatrist soon.

  73. Theophrastus

    I agree it would be a bold strategy.

    I suppose a lot depends on whether you think we are in the early stages of the war of our lives – in which case it is possible to make a case that we should strike while we are on top(we won’t be forever). In that case, a sensible plan would be to nuke Mecca and Medina, and Islamabad, and Ankara, and Tehran (I don’t think the shia will treat us much better than the sunni at the end of the day), and a couple of dozen other places; destroy Islamic countries’ armies and airforces in their barracks and airfields; raze the places of worship to the ground; kill all leading clerics, politicians, ‘thinkers’; confiscate all sums in bank accounts; ban all celebration of the religion, protect the oilfields, and so on.

    I am *not* saying I think this is the right strategy – merely musing that it might be seen as an appropriate response if we *are* in that fight of our lives.

  74. @ Jim
    The “Humanists” are, on average, just as intolerant as the Muslims are, on average. But “Humanists” are PC so any criticism of them is “reactionary” or “bigoted”.
    There are some rational tolerant atheists, but I’ve met more rational tolerant Muslims than rational tolerant atheists (Mike and … er, someone).

  75. @ Interested
    Pakistan is now believed to be a nuclear power, so nuking Mecca wouls be followed by nuking London, New York, Paris and a few other places.
    Maybe you are not old enough to remember the debate about whether China might start a nuclear war because it would dominate the post-war world. I assume that the Shetlands would survive a nuclear war because all the H-bombs would target population centres and the residents could relocate to the Falklands or South Georgia complete with automated oil-production facilities that wre immune to radiation; But the rest of us?

  76. @Andrew C

    Under English law, Sharia courts are binding if both parties in a transaction have agreed to make it binding – just as agreeing to the jurisdiction of a US court or arbitration is binding. Note that these are civil transactions – not crimes. This is why the family law bit is slightly complex, since marriage is essentially a contract.

  77. Yes we are in the fight for our existence. The stakes are too high not to act decisively in the modern world because of the weapons that exist. We should use our military supremacy while we have it to finish islam. That culture is currently resurgent and experiencing a demographic boom. They will soon have military technology to equal ours and millions of young angry men. If we don’t finish them now they will finish us. And they will laugh at our weakness and wasted chances while they do so.

    I don’t want my children and grandchildren to live in a world of rape and terror where they are nothing but the spoils of war. We know what Islam intends to do because their books describe it in graphic detail. We should act now. Not acting is suicidal.

  78. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Continuing on our current path is not an option. There are three possible outcomes to the problem of Islam in Europe and elsewhere that I can see:
    1) capitulation and the death of the West
    2) repression along the lines that Gareth Too et al. are suggesting
    3) Einsatzgruppen plus Mushroom Surprise for Mecca

    Assuming we don’t want (1) or (3), then (2) is left. I’m OK with that.

  79. Interested

    If we were in a tight corner in a conventional war, then that might, just might, be an option – though it might well end in a nuclear conflagration (which would, of course, be self-defeating).

    As it is, we are not in a tight corner in a conventional war: we are facing a guerrilla war coupled with slow-motion colonisation (which is on course to a demographic takeover). Given that, then surely the priority is not to declare war on the Islamic world by nuking its capitals and shrines, but to remove the muslim populations from the West by ‘carrot & stick’ policies. Generous re-location grants would help, providing our government also made it increasingly clear that muslims were not welcome as permanent residents in the UK.

    Care would also have to be taken not to alienate other immigrant communities – at least not the ones who make a positive contribution to the UK. The point here is that the UK is our home. Numbers and skills permitting, I’m quite happy to welcome people from different cultures to our home, providing they also want to make this country their home by adopting most of its norms and values. I don’t want to share my home with people who are operating with the ‘airport lounge’ model of a nation, who only want to come here for a better life (aka the NHS, benefits, young girls and perhaps a job) than their Islamic shithole provides, and who want change this country so it conforms with their own politico-religious ideology.

  80. Theophrastus: The muslim world will not be united after the destruction of mecca. It will cause mass confusion and dislocation to be shown that their god is false. Many will abandon Islam.

    And of course we can also make sure that retaliation is impossible as discussed by interested.

    It is a common sense action to destroy dangerous enemy while you have the upper hand in military terms. Nothing insane about it. Doing nothing is insane

  81. Tom smith, Your argument was the favourite school boy solution to Irish terrorism.
    You are definitely wrong, can’t decide whether its because you are trolling, insane, letting off steam, or not very bright.

  82. Interested. Its about acceptance. You say a muslim woman would be buried if they don’t accept sharia. Well I say that’s not acceptance.

  83. BICR: Course of action 2 will fail because it is impossible in western society and far too susceptible to progressive criticism and dismantling of any measures taken. It will never be enough, and even if we do manage to turn the tide in Europe we will eventually face war from strong rising Islamic nation as we decline and fade. We need to win decisively asap

  84. “all those schools called the English Martyrs”: the question wasn’t whether there were papists executed, it was whether they were routinely burned alive. Of course they bloody weren’t.

  85. “@ken

    Under English law, Sharia courts are binding if both parties in a transaction have agreed to make it …”

    Save that Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 states that secular courts will not enforce a decision where there is “public policy which requires the court not to‟ and S33 of the same Act states a court such a Sharia court must “adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case…so as to provide a fair means for the resolution of the matters falling to be determined.”

    And of course Soleimany v Soleimany demonstrated that a UK court can refuse to enforce a religious court’s decision if that meant enforcing an illegal contract.

    I’m merely suggesting a tightening of the Arbitration Act.

    @Interested – I don’t think a muslim woman has to be taken to a Sharia court before she can be chopped into bits. Wearing jeans seems to be enough of a reason.

  86. tomsmith

    The muslim world will not be united after the destruction of mecca.

    How can you be so certain of this? You are basing this statement on a highly questionable premise – viz. that the destruction of Mecca will refute Islam in the minds of its adherents…

    It will cause mass confusion and dislocation to be shown that their god is false. Many will abandon Islam.

    In your dreams, perhaps. Religious fundamentalists have huge capacity for denying empirical facts by reinterpretation (cf. creationists). So the simple-minded muslims will believe or be taught some idiocy to account for the disappearance (vaporisation) of the Kaaba – eg that flights of Allah’s angels transported the Kaaba to heaven where it is safe, and that it will be returned to earth when Islam finally vanquishes the infidel. Or something.

    And of course we can also make sure that retaliation is impossible…

    “Of course”??? War is notoriously unpredictable. Are you sure that China or Russia wouldn’t see the West’s nuclear attacks in the Middle East as a threat and launch pre-emptive strikes?

    It is a common sense action to destroy dangerous enemy while you have the upper hand in military terms.

    Most Islamic states are not our enemies. Most of their elites and populations want to live in peaceful co-existence with the West. Where Islamic countries harbour people who fund or encourage terrorism, the West can take selective action against them. The threats to the West from Islam come in the form of non-state actors and of large immigrant communities of colonisers. Nuking capitals and shrines will encourage such people to be even more violent.

  87. Hallowed be: diagnosis is school boy and definitely wrong. Then the false choice of either trolling, insane, letting off steam or not very bright. This is a content free criticism.

    I guess you are hoping I choose letting off steam so that you don’t have to make the effort to keep attacking the man rather than the argument?

  88. Theophrastus: Muslims really believe. They are not like christians. They pray to mecca every day. Allah has said that he will protect it. It is the early symbol of that religion. If it is destroyed and we don’t get thunderbolts and victory for Islam then a huge problem arises in the mind of the believer. Islam is a religion of conquest and victory. It cannot unequivocally lose without a major reformation being triggered.

    China and especially russia should be brought on board before and civilisation level act of war of this type. Both have muslim problems and demographic problems as Europe does. Both are amenable to reason.

    It is not Islamic states or their elites that are our enemies, you are correct. It is Islam that is our enemy. We need to either fundamentally alter or destroy it. A good time to do this would have been the wtc attack. Perhaps this latest attack is not enough, but either through frequency or scale enough will eventually come. We need to act when we have the opportunity.

  89. tomsmith

    “It cannot unequivocally lose without a major reformation being triggered.”

    But that’s mere speculation. You can’t predict accurately how adherents of the all-encompassing and fundamentalist religious ideology of Islam would react to the nuking of Mecca. You are taking a western perspective, assuming that the fact of Mecca’s destruction would refute their religion, and assuming that that they would see it as an unequivocal and final defeat. They wouldn’t see it that way: they would find something to explain it away, because that’s how primitive religion works.

  90. TomSmith, yes the options weren’t criticism but they were diagnosis.
    Your proposed response to an individual act of mass murder is mass murder and war. My criticisms of your response of nuking Mecca that
    Inhuman
    Not proportionate
    Illegal
    Ineffective

  91. HB: the response is not in terms of this single act, which is merely another demonstration of the problem. The response is in terms of the civilisational war we are facing, which has the potential to end us. Pre emptive nuclear strikes are therefore completely proportionate, illegality is irrelevant, inhumanity a matter of opinion, effectiveness only measurable once once the dust settles on the destroyed middle east.

  92. Theophrastus:your response is also complete speculation. I would prefer to act than to worry and appease or to make our society a security state and extinguish freedom. Islam is not compatible with western civilisation and open society, so we need to finish Islam. It is a stark choice and it isn’t going to get any easier. If we wait too long we might not win. Better to do I soon.

  93. tomsmith

    You advocate BiCR’s option 3) whilst acknowledging that his option 2) would not be possible – due to western criticism……

    One might perhaps also consider whether option 2) might in reality come in a variety of different guises, and whether options 4), 5) or 6) might ultimately have some merit?

  94. The thing about enacting a crackdown type solution is that it is very susceptible to criticism from the left. It is racist, non progressive, authoritarian, disproportionate, fascist and so on. How long would it hold? No longer than a single government term I would think.

    A military strike on the other hand can be planned in secret and executed quickly. It can’t be reversed or argued against. It results in an irreversible new reality.

    There may indeed be other options that might work.i don’t know of any though. Do you?

  95. “Theophrastus:your response is also complete speculation.”

    So you’d launch a nuclear strike on the basis of what you concede is speculation?

  96. Look what happened to the apartheid governments as the world changed. Anything attempted to disempower, segregate or otherwise exclude Muslims in order to make them safe would crumble much faster today. I think it is naive to think such things can be done, the left is too strong, the tide of history is in the wrong direction, and many seem content to prepare for the end of our civilisation

  97. All future predictions contain speculation. That is the nature of the future- it cannot be predicted perfectly. All wars involve speculation. I think that quite a bit of evidence exists in terms of the intentions of islam towards the rest of the world. Why take the risk when the stakes are so high?

  98. Bloke in North Dorset

    @Jim,

    “And to those who say ‘We can’t use illiberal actions to defend Western Values’ I say this – Was waging an all out total war to defeat and destroy Nazism acceptable? If so, then infinitely less illiberal measures are acceptable now to defend Western Values from Islam”

    Well put.

    I used to be in the tolerance at all costs camp until I read “Liberty in the age of terror” but Grayling makes a powerful argument that we should everyone except the intolerant that I’ve changed m mind.

  99. ‘Islam is our enemy’ or words to that effect.
    No.
    Islam is THEIR enemy.

    In other words, the biggest killings by Muslims is of other Muslims, by far. And even at the basic level nominal Muslims live in fear of those who take it seriously. It is really hard for a Muslim schoolchild to come home and say to his or her parents that he read the Koran today and thinks the night flight to Jerusalem was a made-up story. Or celebrate getting great A-level grades more publicly than celebrating Eid.

    In the West though, just one sect of Islam is responsible for almost all our fear, and it is not the Shia or Ahmadis, it is the other one. Why be so broad brush about there being a religion problem here, when it is overwhelmingly about one sect of that religion.

    Just sayin’

  100. Andrew Carey: ‘No islam is THEIR enemy’

    It isn’t an either or. Islam is both the enemy of the west and I am sure extraordinarily awful to live under if you don’t believe it to be true. I don’t think that Islam not being fun is any kind of reason for the free west not to protect itself from Islam though. Do you?

  101. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5036444136001/newt-gingrich-deport-every-muslim-who-believes-in-sharia/?#sp=show-clips

    I don’t agree exactly with Mr. Newt, but he’s definitely on the right track.

    Additionally, I see no need to nuke Mecca. Muslims practiced their faux religion for many centuries without causing a problem for the West. The problem now is that we allow them in the West. It isn’t working. It can’t work. Islam and Western Civilization are oil and water.

  102. @john77

    ‘Pakistan is now believed to be a nuclear power, so nuking Mecca wouls be followed by nuking London, New York, Paris and a few other places.’

    No, Pakistan is a nuclear power – it’s not ‘believed to be’ – but its weapons and its delivery systems and early warning are nothing like a match for the West’s, being basically designed to deter India. The Yanks in particular could hit them before they knew they’d been hit, but in any event their current weapons do not have the range to get within 2,000 miles of London. They would be entirely unable to respond. That’s why I said we’re on top now but won’t always be. I stress, I’m not suggesting we do this!

  103. BiND

    It’s probably just Boris preemptively solving the problem of what he says to Erdogan when they meet.

  104. @BiND

    ‘I used to be in the tolerance at all costs camp until I read “Liberty in the age of terror”‘

    No offence (genuinely, though I’m sure you wouldn’t care either way) but this has always struck me as utterly decadent.

    We in the West have the luxury to think like this precisely because the risks are basically thought to be non existent. They’re only thought to be so because of eternal vigilance by realistic people. Ironman and the rest would soon change their tunes when the Islamists start rolling into their village or street. Trouble is by then it’s too late.

    It reminds me of the ‘torture doesn’t work’ bullshit. If it doesn’t work why do Hereford located soldiers train to resist it as long as possible (moons expects to be able to hold out longer than 24 hrs, and indeed all plans are predicated on the basis that you are burned inside that time).?

  105. My experience today was a noticeable change in attitude of people I met. Colleagues who a year or two ago would have been very guarded about what they said at work were using bona fide racist language that could get them sacked and promoting similarly violent courses of action.

    The ‘racist’ epithet loses its sting in the face of a guy deliberately running over babies in their prams.

  106. “Muslims practiced their faux religion for many centuries without causing a problem for the West.”

    Muslims have always caused a problem for the West and have attempted to attack the West every time they were strong enough to do so.

    From the destruction of classical civilisation in the ME, the invasion of Spain, advances into France, defeat, destruction of the crusader state in Israel, conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and Constantinople, incursions into the Balkans followed by slavery and colonisation, Barbary pirates and slave taking fro Europe, Ottoman advance to Vienna, defeat, Ottomans against the allies in WW1, Muslims have been nothing but a threat to Europe since the very beginning of Islam.

  107. I think escalating to nuclear weapons is a bit hasty at this stage. Why not first drop the “this is nothing to do with Islam” bollocks and go from there?

  108. “I see no need to nuke Mecca. Muslims practiced their faux religion for many centuries without causing a problem for the West. The problem now is that we allow them in the West. It isn’t working. It can’t work. Islam and Western Civilization are oil and water.”

    Agreed.

  109. What Rob says.

    For what it’s worth, I agree with Jim that treating Muslims as we treated Catholics while they were a fifth column for foreign powers (combined with generous grants to relocate to non-European Muslim countries) will happen – and surprisingly soon. The atrocities are coming more frequently and becoming more depraved, and – eventually – something will give.

  110. ‘We in the West have the luxury to think like this precisely because the risks are basically thought to be non existent.’ – Interested

    Exactly. In a word – decadence.

  111. True tomsmith, but it’s always at the interface, and the boundaries have been static for decades. The problem now is we have allowed invasion. When they come with weapons, we stop them. When they come without weapons, we let them in, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE.

  112. @Interested & Gamecock

    We also let ourselves ignore it by doing things like not allowing people to fully realise what happened.

    For instance by censoring or self censoring graphic images of the deceased, or as may have happened at the Bataclan, not detailing the full extent of the barbarity. It lets us think death by terrorist is something from a 15 rated movie, a clean bullet to the chest followed by instant death. It means you don’t have to consider the last moments of life of a person who has just had their abdomen crushed by a wagon, or someone having their jaw shot off.

    I feel the same about normal road traffic accidents, the gory details are left out so as to not upset the family and so people don’t have to read them over breakfast, when it is precisely that which may make people reconsider how they drive.

  113. Rob:
    “Why not first drop the “this is nothing to do with Islam” bollocks and go from there?”

    Yes, once “we” have the cultural confidence to see that and say so, it will turn around pretty quick. Put their culture, which is ghastly wanksterism, on the back foot.

    I’d like to see some instant quid pro quo. Close all the Saudi funded mosques (including any with the slightest hint). When Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues are freely permitted in Saudi Arabia, we can reconsider the matter.

    Stuff like this:

    http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/newsletter/images2006/2006-02_Forwood-saudph17.jpg

    makes quid pro quo treatment of Muslims easy and fun.

  114. Gamecock, I’m not so sure it has always been peripheral. The innitial spread of Islam when it reached Spain was incredibly dangerous. Muslims completely wiped out the previous Christian civilisation of the middle east, and reached the Byzantine empire where they were held for a few centuries. From Spain they pushed into southern France and took a very long time to remove. It was not certain that the push from Spain would be stopped. If not for Charles Martel then Europe might have fallen as part of that initial spread of Islam.

    The next push also made massive inroads over several hundred years, destroying the Byzantines and pushing right into the Balkans, culminating in the siege of Vienna in 1529. It then took 150 years to finally turn the tide and push Islam back.

    We only became relatively safe with the enlightenment, freedom, industrialisation, and eventual massive technological advantage over the backward Ottomans.

    We are currently squandering that advantage. We are fools to think that Islam has either forgotten of changed its nature.

    The argument to remove Muslims from Europe will not work. It sounds too much like apartheid, or Nazism, and is too susceptible to criticism and undermining from the left.

    Even if by some miracle it succeeds and we keep Europe European, the demographics are against us and technology will catch up. Why are you so sure we will win a future conventional war agsainst Islam?

    Military strikes on the other hand are quick and permanent. We can win now while we have the advantage. We should take it.

  115. ‘The innitial (sic) spread of Islam when it reached Spain was incredibly dangerous.’

    I don’t see the invasion of Spain as particularly onerous. Initially. Dark Age tyrants were replaced. For 350 years, things were probably better there than in the rest of Europe. But mid-11th century, Almanzor turned on the other religions in ways familiar to us today.

    It was good they were finally driven from the Iberian Peninsula. Too bad it took another 400 years (1050AD-1492AD).

  116. “I don’t see the invasion of Spain as particularly onerous.”

    Would it have been onerous if the Spanish invasion had pushed into France and from there continued into the rest of Europe?

    Was the destruction of Byzantium and the invasion of the Balkans onerous?

  117. 8th century western Europe wasn’t much to brag about. Muslim control in Spain was beneficial for 350 years.

    I said double ought zero about Byzantium, and the Balkans.

    ‘Would it have been onerous if the Spanish invasion had pushed into France and from there continued into the rest of Europe?’

    Why would you want to speculate about what didn’t happen? I see no reason to play that game.

Leave a Reply

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