Why not? Thoughts on the Commentary on Manchester

Massive Rant. You have been warned.

“How could they be so cruel as to attack children and young people?”

Because they are called “terrorists” for a reason.

“Why bomb a concert with lots of young people?”

Because they want to make life so horrible that you give in to their every request, and killing kids is a great way to do just that.

I did not reply verbally to the hand-wringing TV presenter Monday night, but I did give him a mental single-digit salute version of a face-palm. What I wanted to say was, “Look, it goes back over a hundred years to the idea of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ that the real 19th Century anarchists and anti-royalists developed. They put bombs in coffee shops and cafes, and killed prominent people because the deed caught everyone’s attention and showed how strong and dangerous the bomber and his cause were. Add in the idea that bombings and the like are the best way for ‘oppressed peoples’ to strike the imperial powers, and the emphasis western culture places on entertaining youth, and duh! Blowing up kids coming out of a concert seems like a fantastically effective way to force a government into agreeing to your desires. Especially since westerners generally don’t have kids to spare anymore, even if they are ‘just girls’.”

They attacked a concert full of teens and tweens because it is shocking and because they are a visible and effective target if the goal is to stir up fear and shock. No one in their right mind would launch a terror attack against, oh, the NRA convention, or the National Association of Retired Master Sergeants 2017 Shooting Festival. 1) the attacker wouldn’t get far. 2)The general reaction would be head shaking and comments like “What a dumb-bunny,” and general derision, not fear.

Cold? Yes. But the world is cold. Mother Nature is out to get you and there are evil people in the world, men and women who have chosen to do things that, in my opinion, set them outside the bounds of the law. Just not quite the way a lot of the talking heads would take that to mean.

Things like the Manchester bombing, the 7/7 bombings in London, the 3/3 attacks in Madrid, et al strike me as good times to bring back the original out-law. That being, someone is read out of the protections of the law for their actions, and they are wolfsheads, fair game for anyone seeking revenge. “These people have been proven guilty in a court of law of aiding and abetting [insert attack here]. They have two hours, then all protections of the law are removed.”

Cold and cruel? Maybe. Perhaps just locking them in a room with selected family members of the deceased and maimed for an hour, an hour without consequences for the family members, would be better. Less risk of bystanders getting injured.

No, I am not in a forgiving mood, because, as successful as this attack will likely be based on early media coverage from Britain and Europe, there will be more. Not that anyone would be surprised by that statement, I’m sure, but let’s face it. The goal is to intimidate the governments and opinion leaders into submission. It’s worked pretty well as of 18 hours after the attack. Although the German Minister for Immigration may be wishing she’d phrased things a little differently when she said a day or two ago that Germany has no Leitkulture, no dominant culture, and that immigrants are the basis for cultures in Germany.*

I do realize that what these attack-organizers and planners want is, in part, for civilians to take matters into our own hands, to attack Muslims in return, and so drive those who are not currently committed to jihad into the movement. However, if, say, a mosque’s leadership and financial backers are found guilty of supporting terror, or aiding someone who committed a crime, why not allow the families of the dead and injured to claim the property, tear it down if they so desire, and make other use of it? Why not confiscate the bank accounts of the offending institutions and use the funds to pay for the medical treatment of the injured and the burials of the dead? After the connection is proven in a court of law. Aaaaaand if the families want to turn the place into, oh, say, a pig farm, why not? Make the law apply to all religious groups and charitable institutions, so no one can say that it is aimed solely at Muslims. And then if someone shrieks about racism, well, aren’t they assuming that it is aimed at [insert group here], meaning they are the person accusing predominately [group] members of being violent?

It won’t happen, not without something so horribly dreadful that I don’t even want to speculate what it might be.

The ‘propaganda of the deed’ is working, or so it looks from less than 24 hours after the fact. Will it work again? I fear so, at least in Europe. Britain might be shifting a little. For the sake of the people, I hope it is. But as long as the authorities fear being called racist or Islamophobic more than they fear injustice, attacks like this, and disasters like the heinous crime that was committed over several years in Rotherham, will continue.

*If you go back to the AD 150s-900s, she might have a point. But that’s not what she was saying.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Why not? Thoughts on the Commentary on Manchester

  1. Islam is at war with the entire world. Every muslim is a combatant – so sayeth their holy book. Where you have Islam, you have war.

    No muslims, no Islamic terrorism. It’s quite simple, really. Not pretty, not nice, but quite simple and obvious. It simply requires something politicians lack – fortitude.

    • Or, something incredibly drastic happens that would change how the majority of Muslims understand the Koran, thus allowing for real changes in interpretation and shifts away from the literal text to being able to adapt it to different places and times. I don’t think I’d care to be around for that incredibly drastic event. And the resulting faith would be rather different from Islam as currently understood.

      I’m afraid I’m not quite at the “expel all Muslims” point, because I work with people who are “Muslim” because that’s what their families in the Old Country were, but they ignore everything about the religion that they don’t like (like drinking hard cider and Shiners beer at a cook-out and letting their kids go to church with the kids’ friends).

      • There’s a surprisingly conservative bunch of “Muslims” in Seattle, too– they’re American and I’d lay money their families converted to Islam about the same time that Cassius Clay became Ali.

      • I’m assuming you mean “conservative” in the American political sense. Normally when I hear the term “conservative Muslim” I picture people like those that committed the attack.

      • If the Islamofascists were really conservative, why are there all those pictures of could-be-anywhere-USA from the middle east, and now the ladies are wearing weed guard bags over their heads? But yes, conservative in the American sense of “not trying to radically re-make the culture they’re in.”

    • There are two houses in this world. The house at war with the constitution of the United States, and the house of peace.

      Those of us peace lovers who submit to the constitution need to realize that the others are deliberately and knowingly at war with the constitution, and must be treated accordingly.

  2. In my mind, those that would consider children valid targets have indicated that they are okay with us killing their women, children and livestock.

    “what these attack-organizers and planners want is, in part, for civilians to take matters into our own hands, to attack Muslims in return, and so drive those who are not currently committed to jihad into the movement.”

    I agree. And this may be all that is stopping some of us from tripping into full vendetta mode; hunting these losers down in the holes and burning them out root and all.

    “if, say, a mosque’s leadership and financial backers are found guilty of supporting terror, or aiding someone who committed a crime, why not allow the families of the dead and injured to claim the property, tear it down if they so desire, and make other use of it? Why not confiscate the bank accounts of the offending institutions and use the funds to pay for the medical treatment of the injured and the burials of the dead? After the connection is proven in a court of law. Aaaaaand if the families want to turn the place into, oh, say, a pig farm, why not?”

    *grin* I like the way you think.

    • “what these attack-organizers and planners want is, in part, for civilians to take matters into our own hands, to attack Muslims in return, and so drive those who are not currently committed to jihad into the movement.”

      This is because they know that it will only be isolated incidents, a muslim here or there killed. If they believed that we could ever become anti-muslim like Iran is anti-jewish (how many jews are there living in Iran?) there would still be a few possibly that consider that a good thing, but they would be very few, indeed.

  3. You raise some good points. I’m not quite at the expel all Muslims for pretty much the same reasons you give, but I’m very close. Every atrocity pushes me closer. The days when I say “Nuke Mecca” out of sheer frustration are happening more frequently.

    I really like your suggestion of placing the perpetrators outside the protection of the law. I can hear the wailing that will result from the quislings now. One thing I like about living in Texas is that people here have a tendency to shoot back, but I think it needs to go further than that. When you have a feral dog attacking your livestock, you don’t wait for the dog to kill again. You hunt it down and kill it first. If there is more than one dog killing your flock, you hunt them all down, for however long it takes. Is it pleasant? No. I’ve done it, and I hope to never have to again. But it has to be done. Not all feral dogs have fur and four legs. People whose entire ideology and purpose in life is devoted to your destruction can’t be reasoned with and should be neutralized. If it means war to the knife, knife to the hilt, and sow the earth with salt, so be it. The alternative is enslavement and extinction.

    • Growing up where and when I did, teenage boys were expected to go out into the woods and hunt feral dogs each summer.

      • The one time I had to do that, they were a pair of dogs that had either run off or been abandoned. They were still wearing their collars. They were killing our sheep to survive. The second looked at me like he knew he had done something wrong and didn’t try to run when I shot him. Necessary but not something I want to do again.

        These animals who kill children in the name of their god, OTH…

      • I had to shoot some dogs that were allowed to run free and were attacking horses and alpacas. The owners had been warned and didn’t care. So we (barn staff) shot the dogs the next time they showed up inside the paddock. Wish I hadn’t had to do it, but sometimes you have to shoot dogs.

  4. I’m tired of flowers. And candles. I’m very tired of PC. And I’m furiously tired of the talking heads going on about “religious extremism”. Honestly – does anyone, on hearing a bomb go off, think “Oh, it’s those rabid Quakers again?”

    • There’s some very dark humor along the lines of “curse those violent Methodists!”

      On the other hand, folks have stopped trying to justify the “religious extremism” thing to me by appealing to the Irish Troubles, because I started pointing out the difference in how the Catholic bombers were treated by their go-religious, vs how the Islamofascists are, and then I get into a theology lecture….

      • Y’all may recall that Iowahawk warned about the dangers of radical Lutheranism, and informed us about the various Lutheran extremist terrorist groups of the midwest.

      • At MyPetJawa and JihadWatch we used to shake our heads and mutter about “Must be those radical Mennonites again.”

      • The IRA was a) at least as much a political unit as a religious one b) enjoyed popular support for a long time because they restricted their targets to police and government. Which were viewed as legitimate targets by many,. Even those that didn’t agree with or support them, often viewed those as legitimate targets. Which meant that they did not react violently against their neighbors who did support them.

        When the IRA’s target selection devolved to more typical pure terror attacks against the public, their support rapidly dried up.

      • *points* And reading that is about five times more research than the thought that the folks who want to yell “Christians are just as bad” have done.

    • Every act of terrorism in the modern form reminds me that religious socialism has been a harmful influence on criminals.

  5. No one in their right mind would launch a terror attack against, oh, the NRA convention, or the National Association of Retired Master Sergeants 2017 Shooting Festival. 1) the attacker wouldn’t get far. 2)The general reaction would be head shaking and comments like “What a dumb-bunny,” and general derision, not fear.

    They did try something like that– once. And on paper it wasn’t even that bad of an idea! Remember when they attacked a “Draw Mohammad” event? In Texas?

    Not as dumb as it sounds at first blush, because the only place they could find to hold it has a very tight weapon policy– you couldn’t get in with a pocket-knife.

    But…they forgot that the reason people were doing the event is because they refuse to be bullied by violent predators, so they paid for extra security, and went for the effective sorts instead of the pretty ones. (You may have run into the fat-shaming because the guys all looked like retired Marines who have to work for a living, instead of like Hollywood stars that build their schedule around working out and eating at exact times.)

    And even then, it wasn’t the security that stopped them– it was the horse-cop down the road that was holding a couple of horses and just paid attention. And was a really good shot. (Holy cow, a pistol at that range?!?)

  6. You know, the US already has a nice balance of “take it into your own hands” and “outlaw”– that’s what the second amendment does. Anybody, at any point, can volunteer to take on the job of law enforcement with a citizen’s arrest, or by defending with deadly force.

    Almost nobody will have the opportunity to do it, much less actually DO it, but it’s a possibility– and it’s part of why we’re not as good of a target for terror as, say, the UK.

  7. I believe they will continue until they force Europe to go to Jackboots. At that point, the gloves will come off, and they WILL be rooted out by whatever means legal and extralegal are needed. And it will NOT be pretty. While there is a ‘small’ group of Americans that want the whole peace/love mantra, the average John Q wants and WILL have safety for them and their families, by any means necessary. Remember, we currently have approaching one million veterans ‘available’ to help with defense, many of whom have spent time downrange, so they have absolutely NO problems shooting muslims.

    • Oh yes. Bulgaria, Hungary are about a picometer from it, Austria is getting close, Poland is close. When the chains of restraint snap in Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, or Italy… There are politician who will never knew what hit them, and swaths of Europe will go up in literal flames.

Comments are closed.