Belgian Terror Attacks: Only ‘Brexit’ Can Save Britain from This Scourge of Political Islam Waging War in Europe

But apparently – so the left-liberal tastemakers assure us – it is too early to make political capital out of this.

I’m afraid I disagree. The time to make political capital out of atrocities like this is precisely when the bodies are still warm and the limbs haven’t been swept up. That’s because – you see this again and again from the Boston bombings to the murder of Lee Rigby to the Charlie Hebdo – our decadent, supine, relativistic, Western liberal culture would dearly love to pretend that these are rare criminal events which we should learn to take in our stride and to which we should not ‘overreact’.

And I personally think the people who have been killed and maimed so cruelly and unfairly deserve better than that.

If their deaths and injuries are to mean anything, then surely the very least we owe the victims is to ask ourselves honestly why this happened and how we can reduce the likelihood of it happening again. Getting squeamish about speaking home truths on grounds of “taste” does not honour these victims. It insults them.

Here is why this morning’s bombings happened: political Islam is at war with the West.

It may suit our complacency to reassure ourselves that we’re not at war with Islam but that’s not going to make any difference to the sundry Jihadist cells now plotting even bigger atrocities all over the world.

They understand perfectly well what’s going on even if we refuse to.

For the basics, read John Ware’s superb profile of the Muslim Brotherhood in Standpoint.

Political Islam has absolutely no interest in finding any accommodations with what it considers to be our worthless Western culture. Its aim is total conquest. To deny this is a bit like reading Mein Kampf and going “Yeah but he doesn’t really mean it.”

This is why, increasingly, immigrant Muslim communities are failing to integrate with their host countries in the West, be they the US and Canada, those in Europe or in Australasia. Even if you believe that practitioners of “soft” Islam are in the majority, the moderates don’t stand a chance against the aggressive proselytising of the fanatical hotheads.

The situation is not unakin to that of Germany around 1933. Up until then, many if not most Germans had found Hitler’s short-trousered, strutting, zealots to be vulgar, unpleasant and not at all where they wanted to be politically. But the aggression and ruthlessness of those zealots overcame all resistance, so that even the moderates who despised them found it easier to endorse them and go with the flow. I’m sure there are lots of lovely Muslim families from Bradford to Molenbeek who’d prefer their daughters to be subject to British and Belgian law rather than the de facto jurisdiction of their local sharia courts. But I’m not sure it’s an option open to them.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Let’s Be Honest: Islamism is a Far Bigger Threat to Western Civilisation Than Putin

a) agents of Vladimir Putin

b) Islamists

Ooh tricky one. Before I give my answer, can I just make one thing clear: I’m not in any doubt of the devilish capabilities of Putin and his Federal Security Service (FSB). As the detailed report last week by High Court judge Sir Robert Owen made clear, they were almost certainly responsible for the clandestine assassination using Polonium-210 of the naturalised UK citizen Alexander Litvinenko. It also seems more than likely that theymurdered Gareth Williams, the MI6 agent whose body was found mysteriously zipped into a sports bag.

Putin, quite evidently, would not be any liberal Westerner’s idea of the perfect Russian president: everything from his killing of journalists and political opponents to his monstrous corruption to his meddling in Ukraine (and even Western allies like Estonia) is proof enough of that.

All that said, the answer is still b)

And I think that may explain the curious response to a BBC radio phone-in I heard the other day where callers were giving their verdict on the Litvinenko report. Basically – and much to the chagrin of the show’s presenter – none of them gave a damn. They thought it was a Russian problem, not a British one. Yes, Litvinenko may have been a UK citizen – but he was also a former FSB agent. This is just the sort of thing that happens in the murky world of espionage, went the callers’ thinking. We’ve got bigger things to worry about.

Now I’m not saying they’re right to be quite so blasé about Putin. Clearly, it is an arrogant provocation when foreign intelligence services murder our own citizens — putting other citizens at risk of Polonium-210 poisoning — on our soil. Also, Litvinenko was a decent man — with a wife and son — doing good work exposing the links between organised crime and the Putin regime.

But I do understand the sentiment behind it which seems to me to show a grasp of Realpolitik quite beyond that of our naive political leadership.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Salon: Paris Was Wearing a Short Skirt

This time the preening apologist for terror is one Patrick L Smith, Salon’s “foreign affairs columnist” and a “longtime correspondent abroad, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune and The New Yorker” as well as “an essayist, critic and editor”.

His piece is headlined:

We brought this on ourselves: After Paris, it is time to square our “values” with our history
The West’s behaved horrifically in Middle East for decades. We can’t be surprised by Paris. Let’s look in a mirror

Smith has certainly stared long and hard into the mirror. And it’s clear he’s infatuated with what he sees.

You can tell from the (cackhanded attempt at) grandiloquence of his opening sentence:

Another horrific attack emanates from the shattered, shredded Middle East into the beating hearts of Western civilization.

And from priceless passages like this:

“Is this a September 11 for the French?” my other half asked as we watched the news last night. “Let there be no question,” I replied.

Yep, because it’s all about you, isn’t it, Patrick? You’re kind of like Gore Vidal would have been had been wiser, better connected and more fantastically opinionated and pleased with himself.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Paris Carnage: How the West Will Respond

Douglas Murray thinks not. As he argues here and here it will take more than the deaths of a mere 128 people in Paris – and the wounding of many more – to concentrate the minds of our pusillanimous leaders as they seek to persuade us for the umpteenth time that this has “nothing to do with Islam” which is, of course, a “religion of peace.”

Brendan O’Neill is similarly bleak.

But they are being far too pessimistic. Over the next hours, days and weeks, we can be confident that the countries of the free West, their political leaders, their media commentators, their celebrities and their “communities” will come up with all manner of important gestures and statements absolutely guaranteed to strike terror into the hearts of Islamists everywhere. Here, based on our experience of previous atrocities from the 7/7 bombings in London to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, are some of the bold moves we can expect. Some of them are happening already.

People dusting off their schoolboy French, waving Le Tricolor, lighting up the Empire State Building in red, white and blue (see also: candle lit vigils), decorating your Facebook profile with a French flag

When news came through of the Paris atrocities, they danced in the streets of Raqqa. But when they saw the Twitter feeds: ordinary people across the world saying stuff like “Vive la France” and “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” (without the acute accents obviously because how do you actually do those on an iPhone?), they realised they could never win. Just like they realised last time when, for all of a month, people declared: “Je suis Charlie Hebdo”.

James Taylor

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Secretary of State John Kerry brought achingly-sweet-yet-slightly-depressed-sounding hippy crooner James Taylor to Paris as America’s peace ambassador. So moved was France’s Islamist terror community by Taylor’s performance of You Got A Friend that it managed to refrain from killing a single infidel – in Paris at least – for nearly 11 whole months. Imagine then, how much more powerfully effective it will be if, this time round, Kerry comes back not just with Taylor but with the entire membership of the legendary Laurel Canyon folk scene. An inspirational concert featuring Joni Mitchell, Carole King, David Crosby, Steven Stills and any surviving members of the Mamas and Papas with a strong message of Seventies-style peace and love  – perhaps bolstered, for younger Jihadists, by a guest appearance from Mumford and Sons – could well delay further atrocities for as long as a year.

Erudite columnists explaining that Islamism does not represent an “existential threat” to the West

Actually, it’s really not such a bad thing when four heavily armed terrorists infiltrate a rock concert packed with 1,500 young people innocently enjoying themselves and then bump them off with shotguns and grenades and finally suicide belts. You see the thing about Islamism, as sundry learned commentators will explain in newspapers and on TV, is that it does not pose the same “existential threat” to the West that, say, Nazi Germany did or Stalin’s Soviet Union did. So you see, it’s all OK in fact.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Seven Shoddy Excuses Lefties Use to Justify the Paris Massacre

1. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.”

This hackneyed faux-truism is the Expecto Patronum of squishy liberal apologists. That is, when the going gets tough and they’re forced to do that difficult thing – defending free speech – they reach desperately for this magical formula, rather as Harry Potter does when faced with the Dementors. Once the phrase has been uttered, they seem to think, the argument has been made for them and the nasty, scary problem will go away – as no doubt the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable did when he used it in the most recent edition of BBC Question Time.

But the analogy just doesn’t work for at least three good reasons.

First, if the theatre wasn’t on fire, as seems to be implicit, why would anyone want to say it was? You just wouldn’t. Not unless you were mentally ill. So really, to observe that “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” is a bit like saying “you can’t put your willy in a pit-bull’s mouth”. Trivially true. But so what?

Second, any legal restrictions there may be on shouting fire in crowded theatres which aren’t on fire have to do with protection of life and property rights. You might cause a stampede which could lead to fatalities; at best you would damage the theatre’s box office. These laws, therefore, are an expression of common consent. Not so the prescriptions on blasphemy which terrorists like the Charlie Hebdo murderers would like to impose on us. In order for them to become so, we would have all to agree that the precepts of Sharia law are something we should all obey, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Currently we don’t, though it seems to be the case that people who wheel out the “crowded theatre” aphorism think that we should.

Third, as Mark Steyn argues here and here, the theatre is on fire.

2. “Offensive”

I see that in a Daily Guardiangraph leader today the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are described as “offensive.” Was this adjective really necessary? It seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming. But last time I checked “offensiveness” in the West was not a capital crime. Indeed, freedom to cause offense is surely one of the defining qualities of a mature, socially liberal culture. It’s how we explore the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, by testing ideas – good and bad ones alike – in the crucible of debate. If people are wrong, we are free to tell them so – and explain why they are wrong. If we simply decide that some things cannot be said simply because they are “offensive” this enables aggrieved minorities to close down any argument they dislike without its ever being aired in public. This is not freedom of speech, but the opposite.

3. “Provocative.”

The first time I heard this justification was – bizarrely – from an old university friend of mine in the aftermath of the brutal 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh. Sure it was jolly sad and upsetting, she argued, but frankly the guy was an outrageous provocateur who deliberately courted controversy so we should hardly be surprised that he came to a sticky end.

Wow! I never met Theo Van Gogh but I’m pretty sure that, had I asked him, he would have said that being shot in the street was not part of his life plan. Nor was it for the Charlie Hebdo team. They did what they did not, I suspect, because they wanted to but because they felt they had to. Why? Because of precisely the kind of cultural surrender they would have recognised in my university friend’s response to Theo Van Gogh’s death.

4. “Islamophobia”

It’s a nonsense term, of course, because phobias are traditionally a fear of something irrational. But it’s also a classic example of something the progressives are forever enjoining us not to do: victim-blaming. Those millions who gathered in Paris and elsewhere yesterday at the Charlie Hebdo vigils: do we imagine that any one of them wants anything other than to live in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbours? It’s really about time that lefty apologists like Owen Jones stopped responding to every new Islamist atrocity as if it were otherwise.

5. “Anders Breivik”

If Anders Breivik had never existed the left would have had to invent him. He is the (allegedly) right-wing bogeyman they can wheel out at every turn – as Vince Cable did on BBC Question Time – to ‘prove’ that modern terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. The correct response when they try to play this game is: “OK. Apart from Anders Breivik, name two more. Even one more….” (Note incidentally how Owen Jones goes for the double here: Islamophobia and Breivik)

6. “The spectre of the Far Right.”

Another favourite cliche of progressive apologists, as witness most BBC reports on the killings in Paris. Yes, all right, so it seems that most of the evidence – well, all the evidence, actually – points to the murders being the work of fanatical Islamist cells. But it never does any harm, if you’re a liberal, to spread the blame a bit by suggesting that Marine Le Pen and her resurgent Front National (aka “the spectre of the Far Right”) may have played their part in “stoking tensions…”

Oh and one more thing to be noted about “spectres”: being insubstantial, they lack the ability to kill people.

Actually, two more things: Owen Jones again. He’s gone for the treble! (“The favourite target of the Far Right in Europe is…Muslims”). Go on, my son! Back of the net!)

7. “Editorial foolishness”

This is quite similar to point 3, but let’s give a special paragraph of shame to the senior Financial Times editor Tony Barber for that disgraceful apologia for terrorist violence he published the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.

What Barber (and his craven ilk) don’t seem to realise is that are many, many of us out here who could produce any number of such niggling criticisms of Charlie Hebdo and who, too, secretly rather wish they’d never gone and published those bloody cartoons. But that’s really not the point. They did it to establish a principle. We may not agree with how they did it and few, if any, of us would have done it ourselves. But the principle for which they were fighting ought to be sacrosanct. Either you have free speech or you don’t. Any one trying to argue otherwise has no business being a journalist.

From Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Exposed: the self-inflicted Hamas ‘massacre’ blamed by the media on Israel
  2. Want to live on a film set? How Hollywood is bringing New Orleans, Paris and Berlin to a location near you
  3. How ‘Right-wing’ was Anders Breivik?
  4. Life’s too short to be nice to Lefties

One thought on “Seven Shoddy Excuses Lefties Use To Justify The Paris Massacre”

  1. CleanEnergyPundit says:30th January 2015 at 11:55 pmTo my earlier blog at http://tinyurl.com/pdy7eka about the effects of the “Nuremberg Meme Funnel”, I have added some points and extended bibliography in the light of Charlie Hebdo – which might be of interest.

Comments are closed.

Sydney Siege: The Left Responds with Its Usual Sensitivity

We don’t know how the Sydney siege is going to end yet but of one thing we can be pretty sure: the main concern of Australia’s national broadcaster ABC will not be the suffering and fear experienced by those innocent people who have been held hostage; rather it will be that there might be some anti-Muslim backlash.

How do we know this? First, because ABC is so left wing it makes the BBC look like Fox News. Second, because this is how sensitive, progressive types always respond to incidents of this kind. (One of the BBC’s first reactions after the 7/7 bus and tube bombings was to despatch various reporters to Muslim “communities” to canvas them for evidence of growing Islamophobia).

Thirdly, because it has already started with a Twitter hashtag campaign called #Illridewithyou.

The story of how the campaign started is, admittedly, quite touching. An Australian woman called Rachael Jacobs saw a Muslim woman commuter on the train looking “isolated and fearful” and apparently trying to remove her headscarf so as to avoid attracting attention. Ms Jacobs approached her and said: “Leave it on. I’ll walk with you.”

Individual acts of kindness like this are lovely. But when they mutate into Twitter hashtag campaigns they acquire a smug, bullying sanctimoniousness which not only demeans the original act but which, worse, skews the debate about Islamism in a very unhelpful, self-defeating way.

One of the more notable facts about Islamist terror incidents in the West, be they 9/11 and the Boston marathon bombings or the 7/7 tube and bus bombings or the Bali bomb which killed so many young Australians, is how very little they have changed public attitudes to Muslims in general.

Which is to say that – despite the best efforts of organisations like Tell Mama to prove otherwise with dodgy stastistics – there has been NO significant anti-Muslim backlash and NO outbreak of “Islamophobia” in the West. People are more than capable of distinguishing between Islamist extremists and the broader Muslim community and – so far at any rate – have behaved towards the latter with just the sort of tolerance, sympathy and generosity of spirit displayed by Ms Jacobs towards that commuter.

What that Twitter hashtag campaign does is subtly to imply otherwise: “There are loads of bigots out there who’d like to take it out on innocent Muslims. But I’m not one of them. I’m lovely and caring and I’m bloody great,” it says.

Well I’m sure you are lovely and caring and bloody great, all you “Illridewithyou” luvvies. But you’re also – in my experience – so delighted by your own sensitivity, so certain that you hold the moral high ground that you feel it enables you to duck all responsibility for engaging with the Islamism problem seriously.

Being nice to peace-loving, law-abiding Muslims is a necessary condition for putting an end to Islamist extremism – but it is definitely not a sufficient one. You can perform as many random acts of kindness as you like – but it ain’t going to cut much ice with the girl-kidnappers of Boko Haram or the decapitators of Islamic State or the rogue operators like the Sydney cafe hostage-taker. They’ll just take you for a sap. Or, as Osama once put it, for a “weak horse.”

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Memo to the BBC: it’s not the ‘far right’ which decapitates aid workers or rapes schoolgirls
  2. How the BBC reported Al Qaeda’s plot to blow seven US and British airliners out of the sky
  3. How ‘Right-wing’ was Anders Breivik?
  4. How The West Was Lost (ctd): the Burkini

 

Free Speech Is Ddead in Britain. I Learned This on a BBC Programme Called Free Speech

November 20, 2014

Is it just my imagination or was there a widely publicised report a few weeks ago by a professor called Alexis Jay describing in clinical detail how at least 1400 mostly underage girls were groomed, drugged and raped over a period of years in the northern town of Rotherham by gangs of men from predominately Kashmiri-Pakistani Muslim backgrounds?

The reason I ask is that earlier this week, I was publicly called a liar, an Islamophobe and a racist for mentioning this fact on a BBC TV debate programme called – laughably – Free Speech. “Boo! Hiss!” went the studio audience. “Not true” went the silly girl panelist sitting to my left. “List one contemporary problem facing Britain that’s NOT the fault of Muslims? Are there any in your mind?” said someone on Twitter with evidently strong and somewhat unnerving radical Islamist sympathies.

It’s normally at this point in the proceedings that the moderator comes to your rescue. I know Jonathan or David Dimbleby would have done. Grumble though I do on occasion about the leftist bias of their respective programmes Any Questions and Question Time, the fact remains that the Dimblebys are bright, scrupulous, supremely well-informed professionals. No way would they allow it to go unchallenged if one of their panelists said something that was perfectly true only to have the rest of the panel and (almost) the entire audience to shout him down as a racist, Islamophobic liar.

But the same, unfortunately, could not be said for the moderators on this particular programme, which was evidently designed as a kind of looser, more youthful version of Question Time, aimed at the 16 to 34-year old demographic. They pointed the mics willy nilly at panelists and members of the audience with little regard to the sense – or nonsense – of what was being said.

Certainly, there was no evidence of any presiding intelligence shaping the show or the direction and balance of the debate. For all the difference the Blue-Peter-level moderation made, we could have been talking about Miley Cyrus’s twerking moves or Kim Kardashian’s bum, rather than about highly contentious, very serious and potentially dangerous issues like so-called “rape culture” and the radicalisation of young British Muslims.

Afterwards various viewers who had been appalled as I was by this car crash of debate asked why I’d volunteered for it. “Why go on James? It’s like stepping into the cretins’ den,” said one. Other comments from sympathisers included: “I had to turn it off,”; “You must have the patience of a saint after last night’s “Free Speech”,” It’s not a debate, more a left-wing hate-session against anyone daring not to conform”; “Have watched you on the BBC last night. I have to say that even growing up in communist Poland I have rarely seen such a shameless set up and left wing propaganda show. I admire your courage really.”

And the answer is: definitely not for the money. (£150 in case you wondered). No, the reason you do these things is partly in the naive hope that this time it will be different – that for once you’ll find a BBC debate programme where your function isn’t to play the token right-wing nutcase for the torture-porn delight of an audience of rabid lefties. And also because someone has to put the alternative viewpoint across, otherwise all you’re going to get is a bunch of people spouting the usually right-on, progressive cant and just agreeing with one another. If no one does this, then the enemy will have won.

So that’s why I did it but, God, I almost wish I hadn’t….

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Freedom of speech is dead in Australia
  2. Why isn’t Lord Lawson dead yet?
  3. Radio Free Delingpole XVI: buying Britain’s gold back
  4. A speech, a radio interview, and the strongest cannabis I’ve had for 15 years

 

Baroness Token Resigns. Cameron Should Have Known: ‘Never Buy the First Pony You See.’

Saaeda Warsi – aka Baroness Warsi; akaBaroness Token – has announced her resignation from the Cabinet in a style entirely becoming her class, intelligence and sophistication: on Twitter.

Her departure will no doubt come as an enormous relief to the more traditional Conservatives in her party, many of whom felt that Warsi’s appointment to a Cabinet post – even one as meaningless as “Minister for Faith and Communities” had less to do with her brilliance, integrity and raw talent than it did to Cameron’s desperation to get his first Asian Muslim female on the books. One of them once described Baroness Token to me as a classic example of “Never buy the first pony you see.”

Read more at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism
  2. David Cameron’s worst nightmare
  3. Chicken Little jumps the shark
  4. Cameron’s price for saving his Coalition: the destruction of Britain

 

There was nothing ‘illiberal’ about David Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism

Cameron: Best and most important speech

7

David Cameron’s Munich speech on the failure of multiculturalism and the threat of Islamism is his best and most important since becoming Prime Minister.

What are puzzling me are some of the reactions. Of course, an opportunist leftie like Sadiq Khan MP could have been expected to play the minority grievance card. (Though as Toby Young notes, many on the left are so far playing a very cautious game; see eg today’s mealy-mouthed editorial in The Observer) What surprise me far more are some of the responses I’ve seen from avowed libertarians, such as the mighty, deliciously outspoken blogger Old Holborn.

Usually, I agree with Old Holborn on pretty much everything. Government is a conspiracy against the people, etc. But not with what he says on Cameron’s speech.

Today, Dish Face will tell an eager press that “Britain” (he means you and me) must rejoice in being “British” (he means being like him). It will be lapped up by right wingers and nationalists as a way to ensure conformity, if necessary by force.

What he will not say is “do as you please, as long as it does not adversely affect the lives of others”, the Libertarians motto. He will insist it is for the good of the “State” that he inflicts a thinly veiled attack on Islam. He will insist that the “British” have values that all must adhere to (whilst roundly ignoring the very same values as he bombs wedding parties in far off lands). He will insist that all are welcome (whilst quietly cancelling the 30 year direct debit that supported an authoritarian regime in Egypt) as long as they aspire to be “British”. He will give succour to the thousands of EDF marching in Luton against “the Islamification of Britain” whilst continuing to fund Somali pirates.

I am not a Nationalist. I do not celebrate my “Britishness” whilst adoring roast beef, fine ales and my stiff upper lip any more than I celebrate my “Britishness” when drinking Margaux, feasting on Lamb Madras or listening to heavy dub with a joint.

In his attempt to stamp “conformity” on the tiny percentage of radical Muslims in this country, he will alienate huge swathes of the public that do not wish to watch cricket on a Sunday afternoon or prefer to grow dreadlocks and smoke weed. The harmless pastimes of those who choose their own lifestyles will be crushed and derided as “un-British”.

I do not understand the logic of the “libertarian” argument here. Are we to assume that the Islamist terrorists who murdered 2,750 people on 9/11 did so as a kind of protest that their ‘lifestyle choices’ had been disregarded by big, bullying America? And that the Islamist suicide bombers who blew up 52 commuters (and maimed dozens of others) in the 7/7 atrocity had been denied the right by hateful, fascist oppressive Britain to worship as they chose?

If that is the argument then it seems to be in serious denial of something I’d always thought libertarians were good on: ground truth.

When I travel on the tube and glance nervously at my fellow passengers to assess whether or not this will be the journey when my eyes and entrails get spewed over the track, it’s not the people with dreadlocks who bother me. When I go through airport security, I do not worry about the horrendous possibility that an active dope-smoker might be sharing the flight with me. The idea that we all just want to be left in peace, man, and so long as that happens, hey, there’ll be no more violence, no more war may pass muster among the kind of people who think John Lennon was a visionary seer, but it’s not borne out by observable reality.

I wrote about precisely this problem with “libertarianism” in theSpectator, recently. (Too many people seem to confuse it either with libertinism or anarchy)

Libertarianism is not some free-for-all where the only badge of authenticity is how far you are prepared to let it all hang out. But there are quite a few self-professed libertarians who think it is. If you don’t want Dutch donkey-porn broadcast on BBC1 before 9 p.m., if you don’t want heroin vending machines in every classroom, if you’re not fighting to help enable Islamist suicide bombers to blow themselves up when and where they want, then you’re not keeping it real.

Here’s the definition of libertarianism by the US libertarian party (America’s third largest):

‘Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.’

Note that phrase “protecting individuals from coercion and violence.” It really shouldn’t need spelling out. But nothing is less conducive to  liberty than having your legs and arms torn off, your torso shredded and your brain atomised by a suicide bomb. Anyone who can’t appreciate this surely needs his head examining.

Related posts:

  1. Freedom of speech is dead in Australia
  2. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election
  3. Not bowled over
  4. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism

How the BBC reported Al Qaeda’s Plot to Blow Seven US and British Airliners out of the Sky

Go on, have a guess. Did the reporting on the BBC’s website focus mainly on:

a) the warped, grisly, evil fanaticism with which a group of young Muslim men callously plotted the deaths of up to 10,000 innocent people.

b) the dispiriting fact that these would-be killers were not oppressed victims of some terrible tyranny but free citizens of a tolerant multiracial country whose state apparatus bends over backwards to accommodate the needs of its minorities.

c) what we really need to accept is: we deserved it and we had it coming to us.

Yup. You guessed it. c) is the right answer.

Here according to the BBC’s analysis is WHY they did it:

“The reason can be found in their own words, writings and martyrdom videos; a simple and seething anger over British and American foreign policy, and an overwhelming belief that Muslims were its helpless victims.”

(So: no reason for them to do what everyone else does and register their strong feelings through the ballot box, then?)

And here is how it reports the reaction of the “Muslim community”:

“Prominent UK Muslims have welcomed the conviction of three men for plotting to blow up planes flying to north America – but have warned that government anti-terrorist powers should be used wisely.”

Note how the reporter can’t even wait to finish his opening paragraph before weighing in with the inevitable clause implying that the REAL victims of this episode aren’t the travellers who must now spend their every plane journey fearing the worst, and hampered by the infuriating nuisance of being unable to carry liquids on their flights. They are, rather, all those unfortunate Muslims out there who now risk being inconvenienced by government measures to crack down on, er, Muslim terrorism.

The reporter goes on to quote the Islamist pressure group the Muslim Council of Great Britain as if it were the voice of moderation.

The Muslim Council of Britain’s Inayat Bunglawala said it showed the terror threat to the UK was “very real”.

“No sensible person can now doubt that there is a real problem out there that needs to be tackled,” he said.

But then – you guessed it again – comes in that all-important exculpatory “But”:

But the UK’s role in military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq had helped radicalize the plotters, he added.

The report goes on in much the same vein:

“British Muslims are just as horrified and appalled by stories like this as ordinary Britons – perhaps more so because it reflects unfairly on themselves and their faith.”

This view was backed up by a couple speaking to BBC Asian Network on the streets of Walthamstow, north-east London, where plot leader Ahmed Ali had lived.

“I think the word ‘Muslim’ shouldn’t be attached to such an activity,” said the woman. “I think the word ‘Muslim’, ‘mosque’ and the religion he belongs to shouldn’t be attached to this activity.”

Her husband said: “There are one billion Muslims in the world, so everybody’s reputation is damaged saying a Muslim has done this.”

Phew. And there was I thinking for a nasty moment that fundamentalist Islam might have had a hand in this devious and terrible plot. But apparently not. Thank you, BBC, for revealing the truth:

It was all the fault of British foreign policy and we were jolly lucky to get off as lightly as we did.

Related posts:

  1. How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within
  2. How The West Was Lost (ctd): the Burkini
  3. Islamists: funny till the bombs go off
  4. British Gas boss announces brilliant new scheme to make Britain even more expensive and ugly