is all the terrorism carried out by Muslims. The London bombings of twenty years ago are but one entry in a long, long list. Muslims are much more prone to commit acts of terrorism than any other group in the world. This has been true for forty years.
No, this does not mean that all or most Muslims are terrorists. As I have often said, some of the bravest people in the world are Muslims who know that the terrorists can find them and their families and fight them anyway.
No, this does not mean it is decent behaviour to buttonhole your Muslim work colleague and harangue him or her for the crimes of their co-religionists.
It does mean that unless and until the Muslim world confronts the fact that most terrorism is Islamic terrorism, the non-Muslim world is rational to view Muslims with extra suspicion and to discriminate against them in matters of security. The idealistic refusal of the Western part of the non-Islamic world (or rather its political class) to do this is folly, a folly that will eventually backfire on Muslims living in the West.
Remember that photo of Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner taking the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement? Leaving aside the question of whether George Floyd’s death was murder – the late Niall Kilmartin thought it was not – it was inevitable that people would eventually ask why, if the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was obliged to get down on his knees and beg forgiveness because the police in a foreign country had killed one man, should not Muslim leaders and opinion-formers make some similar acknowledgement that all these thousands upon thousands of murders preceded by a shout of “Allahu Akbar!” had something to do with Islam? Why can’t there be – why is there not – a “Kafir Lives Matter” movement?
I lived in Indonesia back in the early 90’s, Suharto was the man. I realised muslim attitudes are basically:
“If I have to put up with this shit, I’m going to make sure you do too”.
Crab mentality with explosive vests.
“The main reason so many people fear Islam”…is that it is a STATED GOAL in their religious text that non-believers will either be killed or enslaved.
No “ifs”, “ands” or “buts”, KILLED or ENSLAVED. No third choice, no “live peacefully together”, no “coexistence”. Just the binary KILLED or ENSLAVED.
Anybody who is a devout Muslim, by definition, believes this. Anybody who claims to be a devout Muslim and denies this is LYING TO YOU; they even have a word for it, “taqiyya”.
Lots of “All Lives Matter” lawn signs in my neighborhood, which I think is just one more-socially-acceptable step short of Kaffir-love (the love that dare not speak its name).
Of course, they tend to get torn down late at night more often than the BLM signs do. I live in an interesting neighborhood.
Moderate Muslims are the long grass that violent Muslims hide in. The only rational response is to not allow Muslims to gain a toehold in non Muslim societies.
Islam is in any case based on a logical fallacy, that there would be peace if the whole world was Muslim. As a predatory ideology Islam can only flourish while there are non Muslims to prey on. If the whole world was Muslim they would have to prey on each other for being the wrong kind of Muslim.
Leaving aside the question of whether George Floyd’s death was murder
Although I understand your point, I don’t think we should leave it aside, since it is one of the most important events in modern history.
And the answer should not be controversial. All you need to do is read the autopsy report. Which states “no life threatening injuries identified”, “no injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures”, “fentanyl 11 ng/ml”, “Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/ml”, “Methamphetamine 19ng/mL”, which is to say a lethal dose of fentanyl, a separate lethal dose of norfentanyl and an almost lethal dose of methamphetamine.
Which is to say that Chavin was convicted of killing him by asphyxiation despite the fact that there was no injury at all to his neck, and the accidental cause of death of massive drug overdose (especially with other health related factors) was excluded from consideration by the jury, tells the story clearly. It was a lie, and the trial would make a kangaroo blush.
Floyd died of a massive, self inflicted drug overdose. Chauvin at most caused him superficial injuries as would be expected by Floyd’s violent resisting arrest. One has to conclude it is one of the two or three gigantic lies that have contributed to our modern crisis situation, and one of the most terrible and ongoing miscarriages of justice in modern American history.
And the fact that this parochial matter was even mentioned in Britain never mind the ridiculous turmoil, and the utter embarrassment of Starmer taking a knee, tells you it was nothing to do with the facts, but just a narrative about how bad we are, and how self flagellation is good for the soul. Utterly pathetic.
Muslim terrorism might be by far the most common type of terrorism, but statistically any person’s risk of dying in such an attack is virtually zero. These are irrational grounds for opposing Muslim immigration.
I want to live in a society where:
– My two daughters can live without fear of being raped, or being harassed.
– Our Christian, Western heritage is respected and admired.
– Everybody makes an effort to be productive, and assistance is only provided in genuinely deserving cases.
– Everybody is willing and eager to become part of British society and culture. By that culture I mean that which was dominant 50 years ago.
– Freedom of speech, due process and other traditional constitutional rights of Britons are cherished and respected.
Many of us will known Muslims that could live in such a society (The Savid Javid and Zia Yusuf types. These types are very rare.), and will also know many non-Muslims who could not.
My country is my home just as much as my house is. You don’t get to invite yourself, nor do you get to stay if you don’t abide by the house rules.
Islam, like the Chinese CCP, plays the long game. Slowly infiltrating itself into western society, until it is accepted. Then gradually increasing it’s influence and power until able to control aspects of life in this society (the Batley teacher and his family are still under Police protection from Islamists for allegedly, showing a drawing that they disapprove of). Political parties in this country depend on Muslim voters and take great pains to avoid upsetting them, not realising that this is seen as weakness in the Muslim world. Disregard “Strength through joy”. “Joy through strength” is the Muslim mantra. How long will it be before groups like the Muslim Brotherhood openly stand for political office and, using the collective votes of fellow muslims, are elected to government? will current rules then be changed to appease them? Another Caliphate controlled by leaders of a cult worshipping the words of an illiterate, camel stealing, murderer. What could go wrong?
What B;ackwing1 says is absolutely true. But it’s not the Muslims I have grown to fear it’s the dhimmis…
Fraser,
Agreed. Chavin was completely innocent but sent to prison to appease the mob. I was surprised the whole force didn’t walk out in protest. Utterly disgusting.
Look into what Muhammed taught, particularly the Medina verses of the Koran (which take precedence over the earlier Mecca verses) and the Hadiths (the sayings of Muhammed), and what Muhammed personally did – his own actions.
Then you will the answer to the question that the title of the post asks.
As for Mr Floyd – he was not a Muslim, he turned back to drugs (having come off them) when he lost his security job due to the Covid lockdown in Minnesota (I was also made redundant by the Covid lockdown – here in Britain), and the drugs killed him.
The only Islamic connection is that the despicably corrupt Attorney General of Minnesota claims-to-be a Muslim – even though his “Woke” (Critical Theory) political positions (on abortion, homosexual acts, and so on) are NOT compatible with Islam – with Islamic law.
So I have to say that Islam is NOT guilty in this matter – not of the death of George Floyd, the drugs he willingly consumed killed him, or of the false prosecutions brought by the corrupt authorities in Minnesota.
By the way – Muhammed had a rather negative view of black people, again look up his statements for yourself.
After Saturday comes Sunday. Middle Eastern proverb Christians be warned.
Muslims who reject the teachings of Muhammed (which he stated came from God – not from him, the man Muhammed) and believe that the actions of Muhammed as leader of the Islamic community were morally wrong.
Well such people are NOT Muslims (although they may claim to be so) – not followers of Islam. Indeed Muhammed called such people (for they existed in his lifetime) “hypocrites” and taught that they should be executed.
There seems to be a profound lack of knowledge of Islam, even the basics of Islam – “Islam 101” as it were. For example, the ex chief of Shin Bet (which was in charge of collecting information in Gaza – so he should have resigned after October 7th 2023, but he did not resign, he even went to court to try and keep his job) said that he regretted not “deterring” the attack.
What the ex head of Shin Bet said showed total ignorance of Islam. Islam teaches that those killed by infidels, for the sake of Islam, go to Paradise, in short there is no better thing that can happen to a follower of Islam.
To talk about “deterring” Muslims showed that the ex head of Shin Bet knew nothing about Islam – he was utterly ignorant about the subject.
Such a man should not have been employed by Shin Bet – let alone been the head of it.
I am reminded of those “Post Modern” military officers with their (Soros funded – and Mr World “Governance” George Soros is NOT a friend of the Jewish people, regardless of the origins of his family) “Star Trek” view of warfare – namely that the objective of war is to arrive at a “political settlement”.
The objective of war is nothing of the kind – the objective of war is VICTORY, the destruction of the enemy.
Muhammed, a military and political leader – of genius, understood this – and so do groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
War is about destroying your enemies.
To be fair….
I do not think President Trump understands this either – he always seems to think he can “make a deal”.
KJP – indeed so.
“First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people”.
Fraser,
No it isn’t. An anonymous heavy drug user dies of a drug overdose isn’t even really local press… Or rather shouldn’t be. Except it was made so.
Paul,
I have read the above. You have. Muslims have. Lots of others have but politicians either haven’t or are lying with the whole “Muhammed was a lovely guy” schtick.
Paul Marks,
“the objective of war is VICTORY, the destruction of the enemy.”
Not quite so – it’s destruction of the enemy’s will to continue fighting. Not the same thing at all.
You have to get to the point where the enemy will accept that their unconditional surrender is better than the alternative: their entire destruction.
For the Japanese in WW2 it was clear this couldn’t be done: we would have had to go for their entire destruction. They were saved by the atom bombs providing that necessary clarity for the emperor.
The same is almost certainly true for Hamas, though not necessarily for the Gazans more widely. The tricky bit is that Hamas is almost certainly going to have to be entirely destroyed, either by the IDF or by the IDF creating the conditions in which the Gazans more generally do it themselves.
This is however the interesting point. I don’t think we have a reasonable historical example where one side insists on its own complete destruction rather than submit to unconditional surrender, so we really don’t know what happens next, even in the case that Hamas does get completely destroyed.
Fraser Orr – yes, the false prosecutions were a disgrace, and that includes the jury which found guilty men they knew (they knew) to be innocent. One of the people they falsely convicted has already been cut-up in prison – as the jury knew was likely. As for the judge – he is lower than dirt (a “Critical Theory” type), as is too often the case with modern judges.
The corruption of American culture was shown to be deep – and horrible.
Nick M. – yes, Muhammed taught what he taught, and did what he did. The International Western establishment “do not know” because they do not WANT to know.
But your main point is right – the modern generals are definitely wrong…
Thank you, Freaser Orr.
I’ve been reading biographies of religious founders: Muhammad and Joseph Smith so far, and there is one of L. Ron Hubbard that I’m interested in reading for comparison. The common element of all three is that they were clearly con artists who had no hesitation about making up new lies when the old ones were inconvenient. At least some religions (I’m willing to believe it’s not all religions) seem to fit this distinctive pattern. Happily for the United States, neither Smith nor Hubbard was as successful as Muhammad.
The Pedant-General – apply your own rule to people who think the best thing that could happen to them is to be killed fighting infidels for their faith.
As the commander of the army that took Alexandra back in the 7th century AD put it – “we will win, because you love life and we love death”.
And he did win.
Paul,
I the think The Pedant has a very good point. Imperial Japan was fanatical in WWII (look at the death to POW ratios for the battles on some of those islands the USMC took). What broke them was that the nuking gave them a way to capitulate with “honour”. Because it was something qualitatively different in terms of violence. Note that Operation Meetinghouse was the heaviest air raid ever but it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were cited in the article of surrender. Yes, you can beat anyone, if you can astonish with your violence. Meetinghouse had 729 B-29s. The nuclear raids were deliberately flown by trios of aircraft (the other two being recon – the USAAF still wasn’t sure quite how good it’s new “toy” was). To switch Stalin’s quote 180, “Quality has a quantity of it’s own”.
NickM – the Japanese fanaticism was real (horribly real), but historically thin.
Before the 1870s only some people were warriors in Japan and most of them were not really interested in conquering other lands.
“State Shinto” (as opposed to Shrine Shinto – the worship of nature spirits), state education, mass conscription, and teaching people that conquest was the way, date from the 1870s (an evil fruit of the so called “Restoration” of 1868 – which was based on a FORGED letter from the Emperor), so was only about 70 years old in the early 1940s – and it got more extreme over time, old people still remembered when it had been very different or had not existed at all. The philosophy was vicious – but also THIN (brittle), an historically recent historical construct.
Islam is 14 centuries old and is very rich (intellectually and culturally) – and in Islam everybody-fights (that is how it defeated the Byzantines and Persians – where only the professional army fought and everyone else was used to submitting to a ruler).
Islam can not be defeated by nuking cities.
That does not mean that Islam can not be defeated – but the conflict has to be, at least in part, in the cultural and philosophical sphere.
And here Western civilization is undermined from within – and NOT by Muslims.
The Western intellectual class no longer believe in core Western principles.
Paul,
I don’t quite follow: I think my point still holds. You win when your enemy gives up or is wiped out, whichever is sooner.
If you are fanatical to the point of death and you can use that to your advantage against an opponent that values life, your enemy may give up against your implacable and insane assault, and you achieve your goal: your enemy is bent to your will and surrenders unconditionally.
Your example does not disprove my assertion.
The I/P case is different however for a different reason. Hamas’s goal is not to bend Israel to its will – it’s not a continuation of politics by other means. Hamas means only to destroy Israel and rape and/or kill all its occupants. It has no _political_ war fighting goal, or certainly not one we would conventionally recognise. Or rather as soon as you do – which millions appear willfully not to – you are forced to conclude that Hamas’s goal is just pure barbarism and should/ought/must be resisted with every fibre of everyone’s being.
Israel recognises this so, even though they love life and even though that Hamas sees that very humanity as a weakness they attempt to exploit, Israel knows that it cannot afford to lose. It’s why the conflict and the destruction is so horrific.
By the way…
I disagree with late Milton Friedman’s praise for the first 30 years after the “Restoration” in Japan.
Although it got much worse later – even the first 30 years had state education (and when peasants revolted over the taxes to pay for it, they were unofficially told to sell daughters to brothels to pay the new taxes), conscription, and a war of conquest – against China.
I do not see this as libertarian.
Even wearing traditional swords was banned.
I wish the “Restoration” (again it was based on a FORGED letter from the Emperor) had been defeated. Japan had already opened up to foreign trade and foreign contacts – there was no need to change everything else as well.
“Islam can not be defeated by nuking cities.”
This I agree with. Though I don’t think Israel’s goal is necessarily to defeat Islam – just Hamas.
It still raises the point of what victory looks like for Israel. I can’t see anything less than the complete extermination of Hamas, though as I say above, it doesn’t have to be – entirely – at the hands of the IDF.
The real question is what happens after that, even if that question remains – whatever the answer – preferable to the usual bollocks of stopping the war before it has reached a conclusion that both sides accept.
@NickM
No [the death of Floyd is one of the most important events in modern history] isn’t. An anonymous heavy drug user dies of a drug overdose isn’t even really local press… Or rather shouldn’t be. Except it was made so.
“Isn’t” or “shouldn’t”? Of course some random criminal dying from a massive self inflicted drug OD shouldn’t be more than a local story. I mean I don’t celebrate the death of anyone, but surely the world is a better place without that loser.
Nonetheless, it was a massively important story. It was blown up to such a degree that the country was nearly burned down, large corporations were subject to hundreds of billions of dollars in blackmail, police forces were both eviscerated and emasculated all over the country, people across the country lost their friends, their families and their minds. The press was censored, anyone who wanted to question the narrative was destroyed. And some insignificant punk was held up as a saint in almost every country across the globe. Minneapolis, once one of the great cities of the Midwest continues to this day to be a hollowed out shell. Here, where I live in Chicago, the police have pulled back so far as a direct result of this, that dozens of kids are murdered on the street every weekend. This is the direct result of the Floyd event. And do I need to mention that it resulted in one of the grossest miscarriages of justice for Chauvin and his four fellow officers in modern history. A miscarriage of justice that is ongoing even today.
It also probably got Biden elected, and surely we can all agree what an utter disaster that was.
So sure, it’d shouldn’t have mattered at all. But it sure as hell did.
What blasphemous, hateful bile! (tongue firmly in cheek)
Natalie, can you, back any of that up with facts (PLEASE!)?
Seriously, let’s have the recitation of facts for those in Portland.
Ah, but . . .
Franz Ferdinand wasn’t all that important to the world when he was assassinated. But that was an important trigger to WW1.
I think Floyd was important for what his idiotic death triggered.
I knew someone would bring-up Franz Ferdinand. Yes, booby, all too depressingly similar. What is also true is that whilst they were triggers there already had to be the powder keg. What is different is that Franz Ferdinand was already a known character and Floyd was a nobody.
The irony of the “Black Lives Matter” movement is that a lot of black lives were lost as a direct result of the movement.
Where I live in Chicago the police, fearing the woke mob, pulled back, couldn’t recruit. So, today, every weekend, a whole bunch of black people die because the city is mostly an unpolice-able anarchy. Every time I hear one of those horrible school shootings, a dozen kids shot up in school I realize that in Chicago we call this “the weekend”. However, those deaths don’t seem to matter since they don’t fit the narrative.
Fraser Orr – yes that happened, a lot of people (many of them black – disproportionately black) died because the police pulled back due to the campaign of LIES.
But it was not an “irony” – as spreading death and destruction was (and is) the conscious, deliberate, intention of the Marxist “Critical Theory” movement, of which BLM was part.
A movement created by white Marxists – and which dominates many institutions.
The Pendant General – you make some interesting points, and I apologize for not making myself clear.
I am old fashioned believer in reason – I believe that people can, by evidence and logical argument, be convinced that their, false, beliefs are wrong – thus making it unnecessary to either be exterminated by them, or to exterminate them.
I fully accept that such a position is very unfashionable today – to put the matter mildly, as today (under the influence of the ideas of Mr David Hume and others) it is normally held that beliefs are either predetermined or arrived at emotionally (by the passions) and that reason (“that whore reason” as the Determinist Dr Luther put it) is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions – there being (according to the fashionable view) no such thing as moral reason.
If (if) this fashionable view is correct – then yes, it is be exterminated, or exterminate. But I am a reactionary – I reject the fashionable position.
By the way there is nothing ideologically special about Hamas – it is just a name, there are many such groups.
And the so called moderate Islamic states, such as “NATO Ally” Turkey, echo its talking points – as can be seen by, for example, their English language television stations. As these are not really the talking points of “Hamas” – they are the talking points of the general position.
It is not just Al Jazeera that reverses the truth (claiming, for example, that forces that wish to commit genocide are the victims of genocide – the same reversal of the truth that one sees in the “protests” in the West) it is ALL the Islamic television stations – at least all the ones that broadcast in English to the United Kingdom.
As for making a deal with people – without them sincerely changing their genocidal beliefs….
The Houthis in Yemen are back attacking ships in international waters – so President Trump’s policy of hitting them (hitting them hard) and then making a deal with them, has failed.
Just as the deal with the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran tyranny, will fail.
The Jews of Arabia many centuries ago had agreements of friendship with a certain person – he launched surprise attacks, murdering the men and taking the women as slaves.
Of course – why would he not do so?
When your position is weak – make a deal, and talk of peace and tolerance. When your position becomes stronger, break your agreements and wipe out your enemies (“enemy” being defined as – someone who does not totally submit to your authority). This was his position – as could have been predicted by someone who had studied his teachings.
By the way “everything happens by absolute necessity” was pushed by the Christian theologian John Wycliffe – and was supported by Martin Luther.
This means that humans are not beings – that no murder, rape or other crime could have been prevented by moral effort of human beings (as humans are not beings, not persons – according to his view there is no free will), it is all predetermined, part of God’s plan, the clear implication being (however much these thinkers tried to deny it) that these evils were willed, chosen, by God, that God is the author of sin.
I do NOT support burning people who hold such a Satanic (and it is Satanic – regardless of whether Satan exists or not) position – but I can well understand objections by the persons (sorry – non persons by their own view) being burned, being answered in the following way…..
“We have no choice in burning you – our action in burning you is predetermined, we have no free will – moral agency, and so can not do other than we do”.
The answer would, of course, be ironic – but, from the point of view of John Wycliffe and Martin Luther, quite correct.
The “Jewish” philosopher Spinoza held much the same view – which is why Jews were ordered (by the religious authorities) to no longer interact with him, or even to be within four cubits of him.