We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh

Sweden’s Multicultural Centre Expert on Islamophobia Joins the Daesh Islamic State. And I love the remark at the end:

And if the whole ISIS thing doesn’t work out, he can always go back to Sweden and lecture the natives on how they’re Islamophobes for associating Islam with terrorism.

Ouch 😀

33 comments to You would need a heart of stone not to laugh

  • Johnnydub

    The there’s the tale of Muzzammil Hassan:

    In 2004, his wife Aasiya prompted him to develop “an American Muslim media where her kids could grow up feeling really strong about their identity as an American Muslim.” Hassan expressed belief that some moderate Muslims could not identify with the extreme stereotypes often depicted in Hollywood productions and said that such Muslims “think they are not accurately portrayed” and that “Bridges TV gives American Muslims a voice and will depict them in everyday, real life situations.” “Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a ‘Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent,'” Hassan said in the 2004 release. “But the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell.” The Hassans received an award for this effort from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2007.

    In 2009, Muzzammil Hassan decapitated his wife Aasiya.


  • John Galt III

    WTF is an American Muslim? Obama?

    “Extreme Stereotypes often depicted by Hollywood” WTF again – Hollywood airbrushes Muslims or get scripts and then chickens out and replaces them by Nazis or Eastern Europeans.

    Sweden is populated by the purest form of eloi imaginable. Screw them.

  • lucklucky

    The remark is fantastic, teaches the whole narrative.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes the “moderates” who get awards and government (and media, and education system) support end up as decapitators of their own wives or going off to join ISIS.

    And so much for America being “different”.

    Sweden is just an extreme example of the suicide of the West – everywhere else teaches the same doctrines (if to a lesser degree).

    Perhaps the ordinary Swedes are actually LESS guilty than the rest of us.

    After all the elite in Sweden has prevented elections taking place – for fear that ordinary Swedes would vote to keep Islamic immigrants out, and to stop the government supported “multicultural” evil at home.

    The establishment do not have to cancel elections in Britain – there is no “danger” of the British standing up against these things.

  • David S

    This quote is from a Wikipedia article about the First Barbary War:

    “In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

    It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave…”

    Plus ca change.

  • NickM

    The real issue is maybe the idea that this is giving prizes (admittedly from the vile CAIR) for not doing evil. Note this prize was not for doing good but just not for being a bad ‘un (until the regrettable decapitation – obviously).

    This is increasingly happening. I think we used to call it Danegeld. It is this simple. Apart from a few loons nobody cares if you pray to Mecca every Friday and don’t enjoy a bacon butty with a pint on the Saturday. They do care if you behead people, set fighter pilots on fire in metal cages (the single most horrific thing I have ever seen on this lappy), excise your daughter’s external genitals, blow-up tube trains, fly aircraft that your culture couldn’t make in a million years into skyscrapers, employ and kill slaves (600+ in Qatar already dead for the World Cup) and the list could go on and on… Just an aside here London 2012 killed no one. Jus’ sayin’.

    Islam needs to get to the root of it’s intrinsic dementedness that causes these evils. You hear of sex slaves chained in Austrian dungeons and such but it takes something like Islam to persuade three girls off their own bat to go to Syria to be wives/concubines/slaves of IS nutters. That is the Children’s Crusade all over again.

    But the alleged solution is ever tighter controls on the ‘net. Not the root cause because I have to say our elites are too terrified to risk being seen as racist to tell Islam to get it’s house in order. The level of conflation between race and religion in the UK is astounding and deeply patronising and deeply wrong on so many levels. It needs to end. Now I have frequently lived in largely Muslim areas. And fine, largely. Got more hassle from the Brit sprogs but I did once use a phone-box in Manchester and it was plastered with flyers for a talk celebrating the “Magnificent 19”. At first glance I thought it was some Bollywood movie then I spotted Muhammed Atta’s evil mug on one of them. And it also called 9/11 a “Towering day in History”.

    The local imam (to his credit) told the perps in no uncertain terms to ‘eff off permanently and got an ASBO on them banning them from being near the mosque. We need more of that.

    As to a deeper solution… I dunno.

  • Arun Thakur

    As to a deeper solution… I dunno.

    Deep enough?

  • NickM

    David S,

    Yes. Everyone did it years ago. The Vikings used to bugger monks on Lindifarne for giggles. It is the continuity of this Islamic barbarism that boils my piss. I mean I grew-up in the NE of England and we had a lot of Scandy tourists who would see the sites and buy cheap stuff (Scandinavia was relatively much more expensive back then) but I don’t recall the embuggeration of any brothers of the church.

  • NickM

    We can’t bomb them into submission. Look at the evidence. Short of a thermonuclear genocide it won’t work. It hasn’t worked in the ‘stan, it hasn’t worked in Iraq and it has spent decades not working in Gaza. Anyway, Grand Slam was built to take-out major German infrastructure. I see fuck all infrastructure in, say, Somalia.

  • Arun Thakur

    I am quite sure one day India will have to pre-emptively nuke Pakistan, if that answers your question. When that happens perhaps the idea will not seem so unthinkable elsewhere by people who value their children’s future.

  • A few of the guys I work with had watched the torching of the Jordanian pilot by ISIS, a video I have no desire to see in person. All of them remarked how good the production quality was. I was only half-joking when I said the guy who put it together probably worked for the BBC, and might even be on their diversity committee.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I hope it doesn’t “work out” for this cretin and that a Kurdish bullet does the job of removing this waste of DNA. Part of me would like to see all such boobs head over there, to be dealt with in such fashion. Call it a variation on the “flypaper” theory.

  • NickM

    Why Arun? Seriously why? The only way Pakistan can pose an existential threat to India (they can be a pain in the arse I’ll grant ya) is nuclear war. They almost certainly have enough warheads to flatten Northern Imdia. Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata ruined in a hecatomb that makes Hiroshima look like me lighting a BBQ… That’s an existential threat. And unless the Pakistani mil are complete idiots and I don’t think they are there is no way India could pre-emptively take-down their second-strike capacity. It is called nuclear deterrence for a reason. Perhaps you are thinking “But it won’t be the Pakistani military but IS/AQ/Taleban. OK, yes, I’d be cashing in me checks then but what that means is priority #1 for Indian Security is to stop that happening. How that is done is not something I know but then as a Brit I’m more concerned about that botoxed maniac in the Kremlin. And oh, it just occurs… On military matters isn’t India thick as thieves with his mob (I use “mob” advisedly)? Sukhoi Su30MKI and all that? There are wheels within wheels.

    Nah, the first-strike nuking of Pakistan is a very bad idea. Unless Pakistan (under whoever) parks all it’s missiles in one place and tags it on Google Earth there is no way India with a first strike could do more than snap count. By which I mean it might be able to remove enough Pakistani nukes to avoid total apocalypse but it would be very bad. And that is English understatement.

    So how do you deal with folk you can’t negotiate with (there is no happy medium from a starting position of “I want to have sex with your 9 year old daughter…” and direct, conventional planes and tanks and bombs have failed – demonstrably. Is there a way through? A third way (and may all the Gods curse me for using that phrase!) Maybe but it has to be innovative. Culture. People like culture. It is fun. Make ’em believe this life matters in and of itself. In particular empower women. I dunno how because that is such a massive issue but female education seems the vital and obvious key to that.

    Wrong-foot them. Don’t play their game which is to entice sophisticated nations into normal warfare. To use an example the life of almost every Arab Muslim Israeli is much brighter in every way than the average Arab Arab. Play on that. I don’t know how but when I visited Istanbul it was full of cheery souls who were polite and kind but of course that was before Erdogan. Mustafa Kemel must be spinning in his grave. Culture bomb them until they realise the fetid moral cesspit of say Europe is much more fun than crouching in a dug-out in some shit-hole in Syria and they could be like us. Not entirely because history and culture and belief matter but enough. More snakebite and blow-jobs round the back of the bus stop and less Qu’ran and trafficking sex-slaves would do the World of good and on a similar token less (from the right – the left are a lost cause) pissing and whining about moral decay within our societies in a way that would make Thora Hird wince. If we look weak, if we are weak we enable them.

    On a not unrelated thing. I had to answer some questions at the dentists. Health related due to needing a moderately complicated procedure done at Manchester Dental Hospital (the joy never ends!). And it asks everyone some questions that make sense but even though I am clearly male I was asked if I was or thought I might be pregnant. Apparently this causes much hilarity with male patients.

    I’m fairly broad-minded but I lack a womb. It is that XY thing.

  • Arun Thakur

    Seriously why?

    Because eventually apocalyptic Muslims will take over Pakistan. I’m sure we’ll lose many people (I live in a city certain to be targeted) but we’ll survive as a nation and a people and they will not.

    On military matters isn’t India thick as thieves with his mob (I use “mob” advisedly)? Sukhoi Su30MKI and all that? There are wheels within wheels

    Of course, they are good weapons. Why not? We’d be very unwise to rely on America for our weapons, particularly as Russia does not have a problem with us manufacturing them ourselves and thereby improving our own industry and technology, and also making our own spare parts, something the Americans are not so happy to agree to. America is not our enemy but its also not our friend.

  • NickM

    India just bought 130-ish Rafales from Dassault. Eschewing the Eagle doesn’t mean embracing the Bear. There are other games in town. I mean Indid looked at the Eurofighter Typhoon and I think the SAAB Grippen NG (my choice BTW) and possibly others. Anyhoos if India can have a space programme then they can design and build a medium size 4.5 gen fighter.

    I am not saying India wouldn’t pull through. I have been to European cities that were annihilated by the Wehrmacht/ Red Army double whammy. Places like Krakow. It don’t mean going through it is OK. It is not. It is to be avoided and to quote the SBS (roughly like the USN SEALS) motto, “By Strength and Guile”.

    I understand your worries Arun. By which I mean in a detached sense and not in the more visceral sense you understandably have but we, all of us, need to shift strategy. This is not going to be fought and won with bombs. And I’ve never been to your country. I’d love to go. I’d love to not see it as a nuclear wasteland.

    PS. I have a strong interest in military history, aviation and a couple of degrees in physics. A single of the largest fielded hydrogen bombs would take out all of London within the M25. I mean absolutely. Box clever, not hard. But let ’em know if they start you’ll finish.

  • Mr Ed

    From Arun’s point of view, might the problem be that if the Pakistan military/state (the latter appearing to be subordinate to the former appendage) were to be taken over by Islamic fanatics hell-bent on destroying India, a massive first strike would at least give India a chance of survival.

    The Soviet military doctrine in the Cold War developed into a massive first strike. The reasoning being roughly:

    1. There would be nothing for its troops (and allies) to defect or surrender to.
    2. The Soviets noted that the Americans placed anti-ballistic missiles around their ICBMs, indicating to the Soviets that they wished to protect their missiles from a strike (rather than launch them). If the Americans were cautious, then a first strike might work.
    3. If you are going to start a war, the ‘Axe’ theory was that like starting a fight in a bar, if it ends up as an axe fight, you don’t start by throwing whisky over your foe, punch, throw a chair and draw knives, only to find that you foe has an axe, start with the axe and then finish it.

  • NickM

    Right so we are taking advice from the Sovs now. Grrreat!!! Who wound up winning the Cold War?

  • Mr Ed

    NickM, nowhere did I say that. Your comment is almost a case study in fallacious thinking.

    1. The Soviets were the aggressors in the Cold War.
    2. They had plans for a ‘Hot’ War.
    3. Those were their plans.

    That they lost the Cold War is not a relevant consideration. The situation faced by India is one where they have to decide if the risk of being nuked by a future Pakistan regime outweighs the risk of striking first.

  • NickM

    Mr Ed,
    I know not where to begin. Yes, the Sovs were the bad gys but I was talking tactics not morals. That is the difference. Your point 3 is a r-iteration of 1 & 2. The losing of the Cold War by the Sovs does matter (talk to my Polish and Czech friends). It does matter. The thing is how to win and how to win meaningfully.

  • Mr Ed


    It’s obvious why you know not where to being, but not to you. The tactics are those that India may consider. Point 3 refers to the first strike plans in the context of a Hot War.

    The main thing is not to be nuked. The rest should take care of itself.

  • Arun Thakur

    India would pre-emptively strike Pakistan to forestall and mitigate a nuclear attack by a lunatic government of the sort very believable coming to power there. I think this scenario is probable at some point in the future. One would hope not of course. And once started, it makes no sense not to go all the way. And there is China, but they can be met with nuclear deterrence because a similar lunatic government is most unlikely there.

  • NickM

    Mr Ed,
    Yu are still not making any sense. You outt line their plan and then to add empasis say it was their plan!

    If ten useable IRBMs remain in Pakistani hands after the Indian snapcount you are looking at Hell.

  • Arun Thakur

    The whole point of a pre-emptive strike would be to have as few of their missiles remaining as possible. If we cut them down to ten than that would be a very good result, probably better than we could hope for. Many people would still dies of course but it is better than waiting for them to launch 100 at us.

  • Mr Ed


    If it is obscure I am sorry, but Hot War was the Plan, the Axe theory applied to implementation of the plan, two separate points. Arun puts ithe issue well, he does not advocate war so much as mitigation of risk and damage.

    If NickM, you would care to explain how you got to:

    Right so we are taking advice from the Sovs now.

    from my comment I’d be genuinely interested in the chain of reasoning.

  • Johnnydub

    As I posted in a previous thread, I’m not sure why we haven’t turned Raqqa into Dresden Mk II.

  • NickM

    Dresden was oddly enough a Sov plan. They wanted to see the Western allies “to do something”(Dresden was a major railway hub to the east).The chain of reasoning is this simple: it is not about morality but strategy and tactics. Some of you might want to have an almighty stomp-fest over the rag-heads but will that achieve anything? Really?

    Has it ever? Note that Britain recently got out of it’s fourth Afghan War. I’m no fucking Quaker but it is simply tactically idiotic to reinforce failure*. Yet that is what we do and what they expect. We are playing their game. The only way to win (and we need to define “win”) is to play a new game.

    And Mr Ed (a talking horse) I hold with the simple fact your point #3 is pointless. You might have thought it strengthened #1 & #2 but it simply re-iterated to no cause. It added nothing.

    *The point I decided this was a pointless quest was when I read in The Times about a (pre-pubescent) girl being abducted and “married” to some “Elder” as recompense for the alleged theft of the best fighting dog in the province. And they think the morals of the West are corrupt. Jesus fucking wept. We can’t engage and we can’t engage (if you see what I mean). And we can’t bomb ’em back to the Stone Age because they is already there. All we can effectively do is culture bomb and try and shift ’em.

  • Mr Black

    It’s laughable for NickM to suggest we can’t bomb them into submission. Firstly, we haven’t even tried. In fact, we go out of our way to NOT bomb them, with RoE that prohibit virtually any attack that might break a civilians window somewhere.

    And secondly, one does not bomb an enemy to frighten them. The intent is to slaughter those in the kill zone so the people in the NEXT kill zone offer up their surrender. If they don’t, they die too. When fleets of B-52’s are a daily sight over these shitholes and entire cities are flattened and the populations annihilated, then we can discuss whether bombing them is having an effect.

    Islamism is simply incompatible with the modern world. We are at war, rather, they are at war with us and we’re pretending not to notice. Eventually we surrender and are occupied or will kill them all. That is the way wars go.

  • NickM

    Mr Black, you are aware how many B-52s the USAF has?

  • Laird

    NickM, as of 2012, the USAF had 85 B-52s in active service, with nine in reserve, which you probably knew. But while such a fleet could cause massive damage and engender great fear among its targets I don’t think Mr Black was being literal in his reference to B-52s, but was merely talking about bombing capability in general. And his point is well taken. We most certainly can “bomb them into submission” if we have the will to do so. Your suggestion of a “culture bomb” is risible. They are clearly immune to that approach, as wherever Muslims achieve “critical mass” (admittedly an undefined quantity, but clearly far less than a simple majority) they poison the whole local culture. (They’re like Californians in that respect: after they sufficiently foul their own nest they move up to Oregon or wherever and proceed to spoil it, too.) It’s a cancerous culture, for which the only cure is excision.

    I do agree with you that “it is not about morality but strategy and tactics.” But your preferred strategy clearly won’t work. Bombing might not succeed either, but it’s the best option available. Unfortunately, it’s not one we’re likely to employ before the occurrence of some horrendous event similar to 9-11.

  • I am certainly of the view that wiping Raqqa off the map would achieve almost nothing militarily, but would be a political own-goal of the highest magnitude. It would not even kill all that many Daesh. Now what the USAF/USN/et al did around Kobane, well *that* killed a great many of the fuckers.

  • NickM

    Yes, Laird I did know that. Don’t change my mind.

  • Rich Rostrom

    My take on this discussion: “Islam” is not at war with the rest of the world. “Jihadist” Islam is at war with everyone, primarily the rest of Islam, and the harm to others is mostly collateral damage. Nearly all the victims of jihadist terror have been Moslem: for instance the 132 schoolboys murdered by the Taliban in Peshawar last year. (BTW, Pakistan is hanging 400 Taliban prisoners in retaliation.)

    Indiscriminate violence against Moslems generally will do very little to deter jihadist terrorism against non-Moslems, but it will do a great deal to affirm the jihadist narrative.

    And it certainly won’t do anything to help nine-year-old girls forced into marriage.

    The true solution lies in a different action space. Islamic religious preaching and Middle Eastern/South Asian cultures will have to be reformed on a village-by-village and street-by-street basis. Nothing else less can root out the deeply embedded and mutually reinforcing network of toxic beliefs, practices, and attitudes. (Some of this is Islamic – some is just ethnic tradition. For instance, “honor killing”, which is murder under sharia, but routinely excused.)

    Of course that means taking steps which modern liberal minds find utterly taboo: direct intervention by state power in religion; turning some sovereign states into quasi-colonies; forcing “non-whites” to change their defective culture to suit our principles. To them, it would be reviving Torquemada, Cecil Rhodes, and Bull Connor. (“Non-whites” in quotes because half of Middle Easterners are physically indistinguishable from Europeans.)

    It wouldn’t be that hard to do, if the will was there – none of the reactionary states except Pakistan could put up serious military resistance. Blanket occupation of the whole region would be easier than Iraq, where we were putting out a fire while someone standing next to it was pouring on fuel. Manpower for the “Peace Legion” could be recruited from east Asia, India, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America as well as Europe and North America.

    Of course it won’t happen. Instead the problem will continue to fester until jihadists do something intolerably destructive, probably involving nuclear weapons. Then the world will respond with extreme violence; the death toll will be in the tens of millions at least.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Richard Littlejohn knocks it out of the park with an excellent article on the issue here. I don’t always agree with him, but this is surely right: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2971357/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-No-Britain-not-blame-Jihadi-John.html