Remember the Rodney King nonsense?

I was cheering those Korean shop-keepers with their body armour and M16s patrolling on top of their shops.

And I even think I regarded myself as quite left-wing back then...

Bizarre how the Antwerp socialists harp on about Vlaams Belang while at the same time their ranks harbour former members of Turkey's Grey Wolves and other 'former' right wingers.

Only because if there is any moral high ground to legitimise police authority (including coercion by force), it rests in the fact they do not behave like rioting thugs.

There are of course limits - the rule of thumb is the minimum use of force according to the circumstances (rather than the religious beliefs of the rioters, it is immaterial that they are muslim) to achieve the enforcement of law.

Vlaams Belang are specifically Flemish nationalists (i.e. the approximately Dutch portion of the artificial nation of Belgium). Whatever happened to Walloon (French Belgian) nationalism? (honestly curious)

Re. Grey Wolves - I really shouldn't be surprised that 'European' socialists should be willing to stoop so low as to associate with these (Greek-murdering, Kurd-murdering, Armenian-genocide-denying, (nearly) Pope-assassinating) Kemalist thugs, but the hypocrisy of it is nevertheless absolutely vile.

Jason

"the minimum use of force according to the circumstances ... to achieve the enforcement of law. "

So if your perps are prepared to escalate the level of violence, so should you in response.

Or put another way, if peaceful methods do not enforce the law, you have clearly undercut your minimum necessary...

PG

Only because if there is any moral high ground to legitimise police authority (including coercion by force), it rests in the fact they do not behave like rioting thugs.

The "moral authority" of the police comes from the fact that the government, by its nature of being the government, has a monopoly on the use of force. The growing meme of 'proportional force' is an immoral attempt to de-legitimize the government's monopoly. The only ways to end a violent conflict are to surrender or to respond with greater violence and force one's opponent into submission.

A rational person knows this, and uses this information in their negotiations to prevent disagreements from escalating into violence.

When gangs show up and start breaking things, it's time for the government to break them.

it rests in the fact they do not behave like rioting thugs.

When dealing with a riot, the only way the police should not act like rioting thugs is that it should be using controlled discriminating violence.

I am not calling for the use of belt-fed machine guns here, just traditional riot busting truncheon-and-shield stuff.

PG - sound point. It's a tough call, and I can't say I envy the job of a police PR in such countries where it is possible to call public bodies to account for their actions.

Shoulung - not sure I follow the 'proportional force' thing. Am I to understand you disagree on the principle of using minimum force, in favour of maximum force, to achieve the enforcement of law? If so, I applaud you for coming out and saying it on a (sometime) libertarian forum.

Re: Why react to Muslim violence in a 'peaceful manner'?

Well, the New Testament states that ~2000 years ago, your God allowed himself to be killed without putting up a fight. Ever since then, Christians, crypto-Christians, and latent Christians (including a large part of the left) have, like lemmings, been trying to follow the path of their God, and get themselves killed. If the Bible had stated that Jesus had killed 1/1000 of the people that Mohammed had killed, we probably wouldn't be having this sort of problem nowadays.

Combined with the remnants of Soviet-funded propaganda from the Cold War, designed to weaken Western Civilization, indoctrinated guilt (guild is an emotion, not a logical response) about perceived crimes committed by some people (of whom none are alive today), and a subconscious desire within a large portion of the nihilistic (and Christian) population for "suicide by jihadi," I think there are plenty of reasons why one would react to jihad in a peaceful manner.

"Proportional Use of Force" - I believe is an idea that is promoted by those who may have an agenda that involves taking legitimate power away from an authority, and investing it in an illegitimate body.

Example: a mob of rioters attempt to break into a retail store in order to loot the store during a breakdown in civil authority. A single person, the owner, say, defends his property using a firearm, and kills/injures several looters before driving the mob away. A photojournalist from the American MSM would describe the looters as "unarmed" and descibe the shop-owner as a "gunman". The defense of private property with a firearm would be described as the "disproportionate use of force against unarmed victims of this tragedy".

See also this post.

We must be careful what we say we don’t want to insult the Islamic’s. And we all know they are all just peaceful loving folks. And if they must get violent then it’s not their fault. Someone else made them do it.

Police treat children differently from adults. Police treat backward, immature or mentally ill adults differently from normal adults. That's the reason for the police beahviour described in the post.

"I am not calling for the use of belt-fed machine guns here, just traditional riot busting truncheon-and-shield stuff."

Ya big wussy.

;=)

All jokes aside, this is one of the few times when I really, really support massive police violence: against rampaging mobs intent on destroying property and/or causing harm to anyone in their way.

I don't know about belt-fed machine-guns, but I'm all for a little targeted sniping of the ringleaders.

And yeah, I know, that just gives the other side "martyrs".

Funny thing about that, though: given a plethora of martyrs, most "movements" eventually quit their nonsense.

Its worth remembering that Belgium defended themselves in a peacefull manner the last two time the germans came knocking. No reason to think their reaction this time should be any different - nor the outcome.

Surely the major concern here is that Brussels is the seat of power for the EU,what better way to take an empire?

concern? We should be shipping them petrol!

Belt-fed machineguns would be wasteful and SO ostentatious. As Kim says, better the sniper rifles.
Much more of this thuggery and we'd better get used to holding our noses while we watch the rise of nationalist parties.

A single person, the owner, say, defends his property using a firearm, and kills/injures several looters before driving the mob away.

Sorry, no harm no foul. The press can scream all it wants, but even if the mob carried feather pillows, if they were breaking in or destroying the guy's property...they are a legal target. He just can't shoot them in the back as they run...that is traditionally frowned upon. Not sporting, you know.

@Phil Hellene : Belgium is not artificial, it existed before Napoleonic Wars as the United States of Belgium. And the national motto "Unity Makes Strength" was created at that time.

Historically, Belgium and Nederlands have the same signification : the Low Countries (Actual Belgium, Luxembourg, Nederlands, Northern France - Flanders and Artois) and some part of Germany). it was divided by Religion Wars, and French Jacobinism.

It is as stupid as to say that United Kingdoms is artificial.

Surely Paul Belien knows that Tournai-Doornijk is a flemish town.

@David Descamps, well actually, the United Kingdom is an artificial construct created by the Norman aristocracy.

I believe the Union between England and Wales was widely approved of at the time, but that between Scotland and England (that created "Great Britain") caused rioting both sides of the border, and the less said about the 1801 Union with Ireland (the origin of the term "United Kingdom"), the better...

I wonder what it is about Vlaams Belang, who have a practical solution for the ethnic situation in Europe about which Perry can only pontificate, that makes him so 'deeply ambivalent' about them?

I wonder what it is about Vlaams Belang, who have a practical solution for the ethnic situation in Europe about which Perry can only pontificate, that makes him so 'deeply ambivalent' about them?

Because there is no ethnic 'situation'. Islam is not an ethnicity and it is not a race.

Not being a fascist racist I have no problem at all with Chinese, Japanese, Eastern Europeans, Afro-Caribbeans, Hindu Indians etc. etc., none of whom have blown themselves up on buses and trains in London... and given the high levels of miscegenation and intermarriage between everyone (except the Muslims), rather a lot of people would seem to agree with me.

Thus the Vlaams Belang may be correct to oppose many of the things the Belgian state does and right to oppose toxic Islamic influences, but they also have more than a few people in their party who want to conflate the legitimate need for action against Islamic bigots with their desire to make this into an ethnic/race conflict... which it ain't. In short supporting white racist bigots against Islamic fascists bigots is rather like suicide for fear of death.

Hence my ambivalence.

Interesting that the Gray Wolves are now being called "right wing" - if they really are followers of the political philosophy of Kemal "Ataturk" then they are followers of "statism" (he actually called it that). What a choice Turkey has - "statism" or Islamic nutism.

"Leftwing" means follower of Marxism and other forms of class based socialism.

"Rightwing" seems to mean follower of various nationalist or ethnic based types of socialism (as in the Italian Fascists or the German National Socialists).

And "centre" means social democratic - i.e. ever more government spending and regulation till total state control is achieved.

It would seem that people who want LESS government have no place on this "political spectrum".

"It would seem that people who want LESS government have no place on this 'political spectrum'"

Convenient for the lefties isn't it? Either you accept statist lefty collectivism, or by definition, you're a right wing fascist.

Adding to the confusion, elements of the religious right seem, at times, unable to distinguish between Libertarians and Lefties.

Go figure.

CFM

Islam is a verneer.

Tribalism is the key.

Well, the Ramadan Riots are on TV right now.

So...I propose: Advent Riots!!!

j/k

Some serious crowd control and law enforcement would be a good thing. Let these nutters practice a little jail cell islam.