Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Islam

Fighting terrorism – What works and what does not ?

Lighting candles doesn’t work, placing teddy bears at the scene doesn’t work. Hugging doesn’t work, singing songs doesn’t work. Praying doesn’t seem all that efficacious.

Walking around with “Je suis Charlie” or “Je suis Priest” doesn’t work, because y’know, you’re not. The priest is dead as are the Charlie Hebdo employees.

Pretending as the Germans seem to be that all these attacks are nothing to do with radical Islam seems deranged. The BBC joined in with this fantasy, accidentally forgetting to call the Iranian guy Ali. Calling him David and pretending he’s a right-wing nut better fits their narrative. Him shouting Allah Akbar before the murders doesn’t.

Empty words from politicians don’t work, declarations that they “will never win” don’t work. Tell Martin McGuiness he hasn’t won.

The war on terror is a total, counter-productive fail. The West has been variously bombing and fighting assorted maniacs in Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan and Libya and other places for more than a decade now. How’s that working out? If only someone could have foreseen it – oh wait, Ron Paul and others did.

Immigration, specifically mass immigration from Islamic countries has failed. Even in non-violent terms, these communities fail to integrate, fail to perform academically and are far more likely to be involved in crime or have welfare dependence. I guess being illiterate in your own language when you arrive in Europe means you are less likely to be able to make an economic contribution when you are here. That and being traumatised by war and radicalised by Mosques. Hence ghettos, although the left would have us believe that because of white privilege, it’s the host country’s fault. In some way.

Critically, the French and German security operations have failed totally and utterly. That’s worth repeating, the French security operation in particular has failed totally. There are reports that the French state knew the church from yesterday was on a hit list. It is not clear whether they told the church. It is quite clear they failed to protect it.

They’ve had a state of emergency for months now; cops and troops standing around with guns and they have failed totally to prevent their citizens being slaughtered like sheep. They cannot protect their people, their priests, their children…their children.

Defenders of this will say “ah well the police can’t be everywhere”

Right, they can’t. If you are a maniac and you see twenty soldiers on the street corner, you simply walk a mile away and perpetrate horror at that location.
So what would work?

I’ll leave that to you then post follow up in a few days. But we know for sure, this isn’t working and people are being left defenceless and slaughtered.

I agree with President Obama

Really?

Do I?

That’s pretty much a first.

I agree with President Obama over his refusal to use the term ‘radical Islam’, albeit for different reasons.

Obama refusal to use the term is a demonstration of his contempt for the reasoning abilities of his fellow citizens, by failing to use the term he panders to Islam as a whole, and hopes to focus attention on other issues, such as the supposed failings of tolerance in America, and the need to disarm everyone who isn’t a criminal.

I, on the other hand, don’t use it because radical Islam, in the sense everyone is using, doesn’t exist. The violence we see is not due to any new fangled radicalisation of Islamic belief, but rather to the ancient doctrine of Jihadism. This is a fundamentalist interpretation to be sure, and while it is certainly not a universal view, it has been mainstream for the entire existence of Islam.

Use of the term radical implies something new, or unusual, or extreme. It is none of these. What we call radical Islam is, in historical terms, not in the least radical.

I would certainly consider proposing the use of ‘fundamental Islam’ in preference to ‘radical Islam’ as part of the CCiZ house style, but I am surrounded by stroppy individualists here. Seeking agreement with this lot really is like herding cats, so I won’t bother trying.

Update:

The “radical” Muslims aren’t the crazies with the long beards and the mad staring eyes spouting medieval gibberish that they happen to believe to be the word of God (and who am I to say they are right or wrong?).

No, by the proper use of the word “radical”, they would be those who believe they can transform Islam, with all its traditional beliefs and vile prejudices, into a faith that’s compatible with modern, tolerant Australia.

Rowan Dean: Courier Mail 19 June, 2016

H/T Andrew Bolt

The fix is in

What’s the point?

Why do they even bother lying to us when we all know no one believes a word these people have to say?

Sharia teaching is being “misused” and “exploited” to discriminate against Muslim women, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed, as she unveiled plans for an independent inquiry into the issue.

But she insisted that many British people “benefit a great deal” from the guidance offered by Sharia teaching and other religious codes.

Why even pretend to an enquiry when the result is so blatantly preordained before it even starts?

I’d be delighted to learn where Ms May received the Koranic training she is so happy to share with us before the inquiry even opens.

Truly, these people regard the rest of us with the deepest contempt, and they don’t even try to hide it any longer.

Shoddy Absurdia considers issuing I.O.U.’s

I'm sure we're never going to see 100 dollar oil barrel again

Saudi Arabia is considering using IOUs to pay outstanding bills with contractors and conserve cash, according to people briefed on the discussions.

As payment from the state, contractors would receive bond-like instruments which they could hold until maturity or sell on to banks, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. Companies have received some payments in cash and the rest could come in the “I-owe-you” notes, the people said, adding that no decisions have been made on the measures.

Saudi Arabia has slowed payments to contractors and suppliers, tapped foreign reserves and borrowed from local and international banks in response to the decline in crude oil, which accounts for the bulk of its revenue. The country will probably post a budget deficit of about 13.5 percent of economic output this year, according to International Monetary Fund estimates, pushing the government to borrow an estimated 120 billion riyals ($32 billion).

Bloomberg - Saudi Arabia Considers Paying Contractors With IOUs

In the overall scheme of things this probably doesn’t amount to much, but it just goes to show how even a little disturbance in the oil price can cause economic turmoil when all you have is oil.

I don’t expect Venezuelan-type queuing for bog roll in Riyadh any time soon, but it just goes to show that when we eventually transition to a post-oil global economy these bastards will be back to buggering goats in their desert tents, which is exactly where they belong.

If only there was some way of making it happen sooner…

Greater Manchester Police apologise for noticing

So Greater Manchester Police were carrying out this terror exercise yesterday

https://twitter.com/i/moments/729988461755826176

And some people now apparently feel safer. Why? This is all about the response to an attack and a possible follow up, rather than the attack itself.

Now if GMP had said “You know what, we need to arm our citizens, we trust the law-abiding to be able to carry Glocks and if they are properly trained they could personally respond to a Paris style attack, rather than being slaughtered like sheep as we know from recent events they will be. We recognise that the terror advice of ‘run, hide, tell’ is treating people like children and is wildly reckless”

But of course, they didn’t say that. Instead they found themselves apologising to our constantly offended friends in the Muslim community. Some people were simply baffled as to why GMP might think an attacker might shout “Allahu Akbar” before committing murder.

Well they could look at recent terrorist attacks in the UK and on the continent and see what religious group is statistically over-represented per capita? Or they could look at the German knife attack this very day and see if there is any suggestion the perpetrator shouted “Die in the name of Ganesh” They could look at which culture is murderously intolerant of others, which one fails to integrate to such an extent that even Trevor Phillips has noticed.

However, instead of looking at the glaringly obvious reasons why anyone might simulate an exercise like that, they can instead be assuaged by the words of ACC Gary Shewan. Mr Shewan thought it unacceptable and apologised for any offence caused, (sic).

When a weak, divided but tolerant culture is confronted by a strong, homogenous, wholly intolerant culture, is it reasonable to assume those two cultures can peacefully co-exist? When people get wholly offended at obvious assumptions, but aren’t visibly standing up for the laws and culture and standards of the host community is there a problem? When leftist fellow travellers conclude the only problem here is the police making assumptions aren’t we doomed as a culture?

We can either choose to recognise and call out existential threats to our way of life, or we can go meekly into the pages of history as a culture that refused to see what is now apparent, and defend itself accordingly.

What’s the difference between left and right?

All too often, time. In this case, about 30 years:

An Ifop poll for Le Figaro measuring perceptions of Islam has found that people have a growing sense of unease about its role in France.

What’s notable about the results is that where once such sentiments were perceived as the preserve of the “extreme right”, they are now felt across the political spectrum. Back in 2010, 39 per cent of Socialist Party voters felt Islam was too prominent within French society — a majority of 52 per cent feel this to be the case six years on.

Le Figaro says the poll confirms a “total rejection” of the religion in France, after its capital in 2015 saw two deadly Islamist terror attacks.

In 1989 33 per cent of French people responded that they were “in favour” of building mosques, while the figure today is just 13 per cent . That year, 31 per cent were opposed to wearing the veil in general, a number that in 2016 has risen to 63 per cent.

Muslims at Christmas in San Francisco

Then again, we have a short tale from Anthony Watts about a December evening last year in S.F.

Posted 12/15/15.

Excerpt:

I was walking down Market street in San Francisco last night and spotted these folks out in front of Nordstrom’s. It made me do a double take.

Muslim Carollers.Photo.Watts,A

I had just come from a two-hour climate skeptic bashing fest at #AGU15 where Naomi Oreskes and Michael Mann gave slide after slide of vitriol filled notes of why climate skepticism is bad.

I introduced myself to these caroling folks, shook hands with every one, and they were all very nice and wanted to know who I was. They were concerned about how Muslim Americans are being treated given current world events so they came up with this idea of going around to different places in SFO and caroling. Kudos to them for doing so as this little gesture helps break down some of the barriers that fear puts up.

It could be a ruse, of course. I suppose prudence suggests we be wary even while following our inner directive to grant the benefit of the doubt.

But it’s difficult not to take it at face value.

ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!!

37bf520a7bd83f17149c126f3516ac74

Bill Leak, The Australian

You vill obey ze Progressive Orders Macht Schnell!

Apologies for the Allo Alloisms, but this has got to be the worst case of whistling Dixie in many a year.

First Frau Merkel invites the whole of North Africa an the Middle East over to her place for schnitzel, frankfurters and endless free stuff, then when things don’t turn out quite the way they were supposed to, like Cologne, they suddenly have second thoughts. Doh!

Scratching progressive heads over blatant ingratitude is firmly shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Listen up… Islam never has, and never will, integrate with any other society. Its sole purpose is to turn the whole world into Islam, either through conquest or demography, thinking that Islamic immigrants are suddenly going to have the scales fall from their eyes and get with the progressive programme is sheer fuckin lunacy.

Similarities

Antony Flew cites an observation by Bertrand Russell, and an Islamic manifesto from the Islamic Council of Europe:

…….

When in 1920 Bertrand Russell visited the
USSR — decades before the Politburo found it convenient
to present itself as the Protector of the Arabs — he discerned
similarities between Bolshevism and Islam: “Bolshevism
combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with
those of the rise of Islam”; and “Marx has taught that Com-
munism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a
state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Ma-
hommet.” So Russell himself concluded:

Mahommedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social,
unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world
… What Mahommedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshev-
ism may do for the Russians.

As a clear, commendably honest and altogether authoritative
epitome of the totalitarian character of Islam consider this
manifesto issued in Leicester, England, on behalf of the Is-
lamic Council of Europe:

The religion of Islam embodies the final and most com-
plete word of God … Departmentalization of life into
different watertight compartments, religious and secu-
lar, sacred and profane, spiritual and material is ruled
out … Islam is not a religion in the Western under-
standing of the word
. It is a faith and a way of life, a
religion and a social order, a doctrine and a code of
conduct, a set of values and principles, and a social
movement to realize them in history.

—–From “The Terror of Islam,” 1995.

Vive La France!

That is Plácido Domingo, the great Mexican tenor. I was going to put up the Edith Piaf version but today we are all French or we are barbarians. I am with Ayn Rand on this. I have been to Paris and civilization beats the Hell out of what passes for it in the alleged cradle of it. I shed tears over the Paris attacks but not entirely of grief – rage figured in a leading role. This is not a “fixer-upper”. This is not a job for Jimmy Carter. This is a job for General Patton or Lt Ellen Ripley.

I’d been to a Christmas party last night (I know a bit odd) but we have to co-ordinate a complicated family structure so this is “First Christmas”. I returned home in a jovial mood and turn the TV on to see a Meccatomb let loose in the capital of a close sister nation by about the most repulsive bunch of cunts that ever cursed this goodly Earth. I am piggy-rotten sick of this shit. Europe is my playground. It is mine. It is my continent and the sword of Roland must be retrieved because I can’t take this anymore. I was born in 1973 and in all my 42 years this has been on replay on the jukebox of hate*. I have seen the “wings” of the Polish cavalry (my sister-in-law’s partner is Polish and I spent last night with him at the party – one of the reasons for the odd timing). The wings used at the relief of the siege of Vienna in 1683 are in Krakow. This goes back further than me. This is Lepanto redux. Fuck me! This is the Battle of Tours and we need a Charles Martel.

I wish I didn’t live in such interesting times but I do. We always do.

But Vive La France!

And this is an act of war.

*Is it worth noting that on that last dreadful night France and Germany played football? You can bury the hatchet with rational actors but Islamists aren’t. Is that worth noting?

Well, That About Wraps It Up For Allah

Quran

Fragments of the world’s oldest Koran which was found in Birmingham last month could pre-date the Prophet Muhammad, according to scholars. The pages were discovered bound within the pages of another Koran from the late seventh century at the library of the University of Birmingham.

The pages were carbon dated by experts at the University of Oxford, which showed it could be the oldest Koran in the world. But now several historians have said that the parchment might even be predate Muhammad, and could rewrite the early history of Islam.

Koran found in Birmingham thought to be the oldest in the world could predate the Prophet Muhammad, scholars say *

If true, it would prove that old Mo was not only a paedophile (and I don’t see his face being printed up next to Jimmy Savile on the front cover of the Super Soaraway Sun), but a copyright infringer of epic, nay near biblical proportions.

The reason that the discovery is important is that it undermines a central tenet of Islam, that the Qu’ran (literally meaning “the recitation“) is the orally received word of god as revealed to Mohammed over a 23-year period by the angel Gabriel.

Now I don’t know about you, but if someone told me that he’d been listening to god through the medium of an angel then he would be deserving of a one-way ticket to the funny farm, with a nice white, rear-locking overcoat to match.

So, how long do you reckon it will be before Keith Small and the other eggheads from the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library start getting death threats? I suspect the fatwa’s in the mail guys, because if Salman Rushdie can get one for something as trivial as publishing a bit of fiction, then attacking the foundation of Islam itself is bound to catch the attention of latter day jihadis seeking a ticket to paradise, a golden palace with servants and 72 virgins (gender unidentified to the writer at the present time).

* – The source of this story is The Times rather than the Mainly Fail, but given the paywall over there I’ve had to use the more disreputable source. For those who have a subscription, it is here.

 

“Draw Mohammed”: Summary

In this fight to retain our freedom, which is the root of the Garland flap, Shari’ah Law and Islamicisation of the West are the adversary. But the principles for which we fight are just as much if not more at risk in the project to Fundamentally Transform the Whole World into some Marxist-Leninist-Progressivist nightmare, and the means by which we fight Islamicisation are to be applied also in this other, all-encompassing fight.

As for the present instance: If we held such events as “Draw Mohammed” every month (but responsibly, as the Garland event was held); if we met every attempt at intimidation by being unimpressed, for instance if our own papers had published the Danish cartoons; such actions would show our enemies that we mean what we say, we will stick by it, we will stand by our principles and defend them in word and deed. If the enemy then wants to impose his will on us by force, by terrorism and war, he will have at least some evidence that we will not run from the fight, fearfully and virtuously clucking our disapproval of it.

With luck he might conjecture that while we would prefer not to meet force with force, we certainly will do so if it is necessary in order for us to live our lives as free men and women and not as serfs or slaves who are at the disposal of other human beings and who are allowed to exist only at their pleasure; and that if we are forced to war in self-defense, we have more than enough strength of will to prevail.

In the ’30′s, Britain and France telegraphed their reluctance to face the facts and to defend themselves against force with force. The guy with the moustache picked up the message and calculated that he could get away with it…and almost did.

How many times must we repeat the same mistake!

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 6: Closing Arguments

The following points have been made by the Prosecution against Pamela Geller (hereinafter, “P.G.”). Each point is followed by rebuttal from the Defense.

1. P.G. held the event specifically to provoke Muslims.

She did not. The underlying point of the event was to EXERCISE freedom of speech in a way that would show that Americans are serious about protecting it. I point out that this is true regardless of whether that freedom is under attack by Islam, the PC crowd, or anybody else … and there are lots of “anybody else’s,” as I hope the various video clips have shown.

But in particular, we in the West are being undermined by capitulating to various strictures of Shari’ah, in this case that one must not even draw the Prophet, let alone criticize, let alone mock him. P.G.’s direct and immediate point in the event was to show that we are determined NOT to “submit” to that stricture.

There is a second point to the event that is equally important, and that is to bring the situation of “creeping Shari’ah,” in this case Shari’ah against Freedom of Speech, into broad public awareness, so that “we” will become not just a few hundred thousand or a few million resisters, but the bulk of the American people: hundreds of millions of resisters.

2. The event predictably invited and incited violence against AFDI, the attendees, and the American public generally. P.G. should, must, have known this, and therefore should not have put others at risk by holding it.

P.G. was well aware that there might be a violent response. That is why she provided additional security forces to the tune of some $37,000 – $ 50,000, according to different published claims.

But in fact no Muslims were forced to respond violently. They chose to do so of their own free will. Miss Geller responds, “This is the same argument as the one claiming that the rape victim is responsible for her being raped because she wore a short skirt.”

(This argument has actually been made often enough against those who claim to have been raped, but the fact is that is both illegal and morally wrong to rape anybody for any reason, even if the victim did intentionally wear a short skirt in a dangerous neighbourhood. We rightly hold the rapist accountable just the same.)

3a. P.G. has the right, specifically the legal, First-Amendment right, to hold the event and say what she wants, but she should not have done it [this may be express or only implied, by the question "…but should she have?"].

This amounts to devaluing all previous statements of defense. It’s like “damning by faint praise.”

(Look for a posting about this line of thought at some point, because there is a good impulse behind it as well as the cowardly refusal to give a fully-committed defense in public.)

3b. Besides, this type of speech, this type of event, “even if it’s allowed, it shouldn’t be done, because it has no value, this type of discussion at this type of event.” Megyn Kelly asks Eugene Volokh to comment on this claim, at 7:09 in their video in Part 5.

Prof. Volokh replies [boldface mine]:

“Well, surely this kind of discussion does have value, it has value in debate about Islam and about the role of Islam and about the action of some Muslims, fortunately only a small portion of Muslims to these kinds of things.

But beyond that, it has value as a re-affirmation of our free-speech rights, it has value as an act of defiance, it has value as people saying “look, we are not going to be shut up. When you tell us that we cannot draw pictures of Mohammed, when you tell us that we cannot say these things or else you’ll kill us, that just means we’re gonna [sic] do it again and again to show that you can not threaten Americans into submission. …. The whole point of this was to say, “You cannot tell Americans, you cannot tell a free people what [they] can and cannot say.” And that’s a very important message to say, especially in times like these.”

I have heard people saying … it’s too provocative. Well, look, there are times when First Amendment rights have to be defended. And they have to be defended by saying [we're] going to say these things even though we realize there’s a risk of violence, even though we realize there’s a risk of attack. The only way we can protect our free-speech rights is by re-asserting our free-speech rights.

By “re-asserting,” Prof. Volokh means showing the existence of the right by using it.

I note that it is up to the Courts through their rulings, and up to us as American (and Western) individuals through our words and actions, to confirm publically the existence of the right and our insistence on not being intimidated into being silenced, on this or any other issue.

4. The event shows that P.G. is “racist,” an Islamophobe, and hates all Muslims.

Horsefeathers. It shows that Miss Geller is aware of the threat from jihadists of both the violent sort and the lawfare/public-condemnation-public-opinion sort, and is fully committed to resisting both.

5. Cartoons at the event clearly are obscene and mock the Prophet.

I haven’t seen any of the cartoons from the contest except Bosch Fawstin’s winning one, which is certainly not obscene in any way. It does call attention to the fact that Mohammed lacks the power to enforce obedience to his command, and I suppose that might be a form of “mockery” in that shows him as “full of sound and fury,” but powerless.

“Draw Mohammed,” Part 5: The Defense

A few, a very few, on Fox and elsewhere have seen fit to defend Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest and the Garland, Tex. Free Speech convention in a fully-committed way, that gets to the heart of the issue and the real meaning of the event and the of the terrorist response; as well as to the MSM’s capitulation to Shari’ah’s objective of silencing opposition, as shown by their finger-wagging and jaw-flapping character assassinations. Among them are Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly in the clips below. Each is in two parts, and each is enlightening.

Hannity, Pamela Geller: with Brendan Darby of Breitbart, who was on the scene, shortly after the shooting. (The uploader says 11 a.m. Eastern, 5/4/15, but there’s no statement that that’s when the recording was made.)

Hannity, Pamela Geller: “Mainstream Media Rewarding Jihad Terror,” with clips from various MSM nasties pontificating:

Megyn Kelly, with Eugene Volokh, who points out the practical value of the event as a part of our defense of free speech:

Megyn Kelly follows up with Alan Dershowitz and Rich Lowry, who concur with the bottom line. She makes the core point in her opening:

UPDATE: I think it would be good to let Miss Kelly and Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, Stop Islamisation [sic] of America, and AFDI, make another very important point.

%d bloggers like this: