May 23, 2017

"One of the soldiers of the Caliphate was able to place an explosive device within a gathering of the Crusaders in the city of Manchester."

ISIS claims credit.

ADDED: "[T]he man who blew himself up the previous night at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, was 23-year-old Salman Abedi, who was known to British authorities prior to the attack."
There was security at the concert, but the bomber apparently didn't try to get into the venue, instead blowing himself up in an entrance foyer area as concertgoers flooded out of the arena. Prime Minister May said the attacker had deliberately chosen "his time and place to cause maximum carnage" in the young crowd.

421 comments:

1 – 200 of 421   Newer›   Newest»
Lyle Smith said...

Like Racism, Islamism should be kicked out of the UK.

Michael K said...

He was a "known wolf" attacker, as has become so common. The authorities knew him and judged him to be "not a threat at this time."

It's kind of hard to tell if this is simple incompetence or PC run amok.

Nonapod said...

Talking like it was the 12th Century with a 7th Century mentality.

Fen said...

I think PCBS breeds incompetence, so both.

hawkeyedjb said...

Yeah, those teenage girls make for some fearsome Crusaders. ISIS is punching above its weight.

Nyamujal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nyamujal said...

Trump called ISIS and the guy who perpetrated this "evil losers" and for the first time in a while, I agree with him.They are evil, radical losers. To quote Hans Magnus Enzensberger from his brilliant essay on this:
"More momentous still, however, is the strategic use of suicide attacks, an invincible weapon that cannot be seen by surveillance satellites and which can be deployed practically anywhere. It is also extremely cheap. In addition to these advantages, this form of terror also exerts an irresistible attraction on the radical loser. It allows him to combine destruction and self-destruction at the same time as acting out both his megalomaniac fantasies and his self-hate. Cowardice is the last thing he can be accused of. The courage that is his hallmark is the courage of despair. His triumph consists in the fact that he can be neither fought nor punished, since he takes care of that himself.
...The Islamists are as unconcerned about this as the Nazis were about the downfall of Germany. As the avant-garde of death, they have no regard for the lives of their fellow believers. In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that most Muslims have no desire to blow themselves and others sky high only goes to show that they deserve no better than to be liquidated themselves. After all, the aim of the radical loser is to make as many other people into losers as possible. As the Islamists see it, the fact that they are in the minority can only be because they are the chosen few.
"
http://www.signandsight.com/features/493.html

Clyde said...

Sea lions might yank you off a pier into the water if you are careless and sit down in range with your back to them.

But sea lions won't blow you up with a bomb coming out of a concert. Sea lions won't massacre you at a nightclub. Sea lions won't shoot you at the company Christmas party. Sea lions won't run you over with a truck on Bastille Day or at a Christmas market. Sea lions won't behead you or stab you or burn you alive. Sea lions won't fly airplanes into buildings.

Just sayin'.

n.n said...

Anachronistic. Today, it's the adventurists that are pressuring his people, not in response, but proactively, in elective wars, in abortion fields, in immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises). The resurgence of [class] diversity and anti-nativism is a progressive condition in the mainstream left and alt-center.

CJinPA said...

The West has been attacked. Again. You know what this means: Mobilize our Candle Brigade and launch a merciless barrage of weepfare.

buwaya said...

Of course.
If it wasnt ISIS, it would be some other random name in fashion at the time. The only thing different in hundreds of years is technology.
This changes the form of attack, the targets available, the degree of cooperation possible, the method of incitement. But all that would have gone on anyway within the constraints of the time. Whats constant is the culture and the psychology behind it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Of course ISIS claims credit.

My bet: it was someone who was once behind her in line at the doughnut shop...

Achilles said...

No matter where it is Islam is an enemy of civilization. Where they are the dominant cultural force the overwhelming majority of muslims alive in the world today have participated in genocide/ethnic cleansing. Name a country where Islam is the law and they have wiped out at least one minority through violence and murder this generation. This is aside from the misogyny, intolerance, FGM, and the more than tolerance of murder and terrorism.

There are a small number of very brave muslims who stand up to the majority. The left is just as intolerant of them as they are of other dissent.

Birches said...

Calling these guys losers was one reason why Trump was elected no?

MadisonMan said...

Evil Losers is an apt description.

Todd said...

Michael K said...
He was a "known wolf" attacker, as has become so common. The authorities knew him and judged him to be "not a threat at this time."

It's kind of hard to tell if this is simple incompetence or PC run amok.

5/23/17, 9:32 AM


Well this is the same country that allowed the systematic rape of entire neighborhood of girls for years so I would get PC myself...

Paul Zrimsek said...

The Children's Crusade is apparently on again.

Todd said...

CJinPA said...
The West has been attacked. Again. You know what this means: Mobilize our Candle Brigade and launch a merciless barrage of weepfare.

5/23/17, 9:40 AM


Don't forget to deploy the Rapid "hashtag" Response Team, or do you think that is taking retaliation too far?

buwaya said...

I disagree with the "losers" part.
They aren't substantially different from the "winners" of 1400 years ago.
The ancestors of that character of yesterday would have been found in the raiding parties of Mahmoud of Ghazni, and would likely have found some degree of fortune in victory.
They are the same as always, its just that the world has changed around them.
They would still be winners had they not stagnated in technology and social organization for the last thousand years.

exiledonmainstreet said...

CJinPA said...
The West has been attacked. Again. You know what this means: Mobilize our Candle Brigade and launch a merciless barrage of weepfare.

5/23/17, 9:40 AM

Of course. To do otherwise would be "Islamophobic" and we certainly can't have that.

Michael said...

The loser meme is not a bad idea. Most of the ME could not build a bicycle without outside help even given the materials and an instruction manual. It should be repeated again and again such statistics as those cited by The Economist several years ago:

"From 1980 to 2000 Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Syria and Jordan between them registered 367 patents in the United States. Over the same period South Korea alone registered 16,328 and Israel 7,652. The number of books translated into Arabic every year in the entire Arab world is one-fifth the number translated by Greece into Greek." Greek!!

And from The Huffington Post:
"The total number of books translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years is fewer than those translated into Spanish in one year.

• Greece — with a population of fewer than 11 million — translates five times as many books from abroad into Greek annually as the 22 Arab countries combined, with a total population of more than 300 million, translate into Arabic."

In 2009 65 million Arabs were illiterate. Doubtful that number has improved.

Etienne said...

We already fought this war and won. Alas, I guess it's a 400 year cycle.

My suggestion would be to round them up, take them in ships to the open atlantic, and release them. Man, woman, child.

God sanctions this as a killing, and not a murder. Remember, God said you can't murder, but killing in war is completely sanctioned.

sodal ye said...

Blogger Michael K said...
He was a "known wolf" attacker, as has become so common. The authorities knew him and judged him to be "not a threat at this time."

It's kind of hard to tell if this is simple incompetence or PC run amok.

***

After years of bombings in Europe it's easy to see how the intelligence service databases become vast. The more people identified, the easier to see relationships, patterns, movements. It would be surprising if the numbers of the "identified" weren't in the tens of thousands. Wouldn't be surprised if hundreds if not thousands are under constant surveillance.

It's possible that the English, French and German domestic intelligence services are state of the art. I don't doubt them for a second.

buwaya said...

A few hundred years ago, this is how it would have gone down -
It wouldnt be one youth off killing, it would be a raiding party, because they would not have been constrained in communicating with each other in their community. They would use swords instead of bombs, and would raid the infidels for booty as well as for blood, because it would have been feasible to win, and keep, booty.

Their community would have been separate and distinct, due to the nature of an agricultural economy, but within raiding range of the infidel.

Only the circumstances have changed, not the fundamentals.

traditionalguy said...

Will he get a Sword dance?

Michael K said...

In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that most Muslims have no desire to blow themselves and others sky high only goes to show that they deserve no better than to be liquidated themselves.

Somebody here, I think it was here, said that suicide is not a common Muslim phenomenon in history. I;m not sure that is true, The assassins were a sect in the 11th century that killed many enemies who were also Muslims.

The Nizaris posed a military threat to Sunni Seljuq authority within their territories by capturing and inhabiting many unconnected mountain fortresses throughout Persia, and later Syria, under the leadership of Hassan-i Sabbah. Sabbah is typically regarded as the founder of the Assassins, founding the so-called "Nizari Ismaili state" with Alamut Castle as its headquarters. Asymmetric warfare, psychological warfare, and surgical strikes were often an employed tactic of the hashashin, who would draw their opponents into submission rather than risk killing them.[1]

While "Assassins" typically refers to the entire medieval Nizari sect, in fact only a class of acolytes known as the fida'i actually engaged in assassination work. Lacking their own army, the Nizari relied on these warriors to carry out espionage and assassinations of key enemy figures, and over the course of 300 years successfully killed two caliphs, and many viziers, sultans, and Crusader leaders.


I think most of these attacks were suicide missions.

The "Assassins" were Shia and Shia have more of an apocalyptic code but ISIS, which is Sunni, seems to have adopted it.

Achilles said...

Etienne said...

My suggestion would be to round them up, take them in ships to the open atlantic, and release them. Man, woman, child.

I disagree in part. The women and children can be rescued and assimilated. It is the men and the religion they perpetrate that need to go.

Michael said...

We will see what happens in the UK. Their tendency, as here, is to kumbuya and hold candle light vigils and create hash tags and to alert the hearing to backlashes against the peaceful followers of the prophet. But a time is coming when that will not do with the disaffected, the Brexit voters living against the no-go areas in the non-London towns and cities. There will be a very ugly solution to this problem in the coming decades because at the end of the day it is not in the English vein to surrender. It may not be physically violent but it will be violent nonetheless.

Gahrie said...

The crusades were defensive wars responding to Islamic aggression.

Dave D said...

"They would still be winners had they not stagnated in technology and social organization for the last thousand years."

I guess this is one thing we can be thankful for. This (radical islam) sort of behavior leads to a backwards, ignorant society of adherents on a whole. The problem is, although their culture could NEVER come up with a cell phone detonator or an internet to spread their hate, they have no trouble adapting these inventions to their ignorant purpose. They must be so proud! How clever of them.....

exhelodrvr1 said...

What do your instincts tell you about the best way to stop these terror attacks without also surrendering to Islam?

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

Nyamujal posts a thoughtful insight at 9:35. I just don't understand why anyone would want to blow up little girls and then brag about it. The mechanics given in Nyamujal's post seem a useful explanation. It's reassuring to think that there might be some kind of explanation for such behavior.... ...The bombing was an extraordinary manifestation of evil. You would think it would be a one off, but these horrendous events keep repeating.

buwaya said...

Calling them losers, as individuals, is a rhetorical tactic, but it is not really historically accurate. You get lone wolves or small teams in such manifestations simply because that is what is feasible, the situation permitting action only by the most enthusiastic.

Were the circumstances different it would be different, for instance if they were present in much larger numbers in cohesive communities, and if they held a degree of political power.

Sebastian said...

"Drive them out."

Patrick said...

We seem to no longer take the time to wonder whether some group other than Islamic terrorists are responsible for this sort of thing. Catching on, finally.

rhhardin said...

Watch for any expressed outrage in the Muslim community.

That's what you want.

Etienne said...

Somebody here, I think it was here, said that suicide is not a common Muslim phenomenon in history.

They achieved victory over the Crusaders when they would tunnel under a corner wall. The wall would topple and kill everyone in the tunnel.

Then the Saracens would rush into the city and kill every man, woman, child, and animal.

They were the suicide bombers of their day. All for a fake religion.

Robert Cook said...

"Like Racism, Islamism should be kicked out of the UK."

Ha! If you kicked racism out of the UK, it would be largely empty of people.

Inga said...

In Trump's Principled Realism, he points out the decent things we share with Muslims, that the Islamist terrorists are an abberation of Islam, that they are "losers". He didn't paint all of Islam as the problem and he seemed to go out of his way to say that it's possible to work together with Muslims to eliminate ISIS and Islamist terrorists. That doesn't comport what we read daily on any discussions that have to do with terrorists or Islam. I'd suggest taking to heart what Trump and Bush and Obama all have said, that the problem doesn't lie within Islam itself and to understand we need them to beat terrorism.

Robert Cook said...

"All for a fake religion."

What is a "fake religion?"

William said...

Western civ throws up its Jeffrey Dahmers and George Bundys with some regularity, but they're relatively rare. Islam seems to be a hatchery for psycho killers. It would be encouraging if more Islamics would ponder what their religion is doing wrong and try to change it.

J. Farmer said...

This was all presaged nearly 50 years ago in Enoch Powell's famous Birmingham speech (derisively called the "rivers of blood" speech). A nation-state, in order to function properly, must have a coherent nation that is culturally, politically, and linguistically dominant. A loose immigration policy is almost always folly.

GRW3 said...

Time to load up the B-52s and do an Arc Light strike on Raqqa. For the young, an Arc Light strike is where they drop so many bombs in such a concentration that it looks like an arc light. Nixon used this to persuade the North Vietnamese to negotiate.

Inga said...

Also, viewing women and children Muslim refugees as potential terrorists only perpetuates the "otherness" of Muslim immigrants. I understand that the Muslim Community also have the responsibility to become a part of the country that has taken them in. It's easier to assimilate if you're not demonized and isolated as a group or because of your religion.

Achilles said...

What is a "fake religion?"

Secular Progressivism.

Global Warming.

Socialism.

Just off the top of my head.

roesch/voltaire said...

In an age of the internet there are no "lone-wolfs" but a network of connections between people and ideas that no longer require much direct contact, although I would suspect there is some given the number of radical clerics that populate England as well as the internet.

rhhardin said...

He didn't paint all of Islam as the problem and he seemed to go out of his way to say that it's possible to work together with Muslims to eliminate ISIS and Islamist terrorists.

It's an open question whether it comes out of Islam itself or is just an accident.

All the Islamic countries are oppressive, so the signs are not good, Klavan says.

One strategy to try is hope it's an accident and encourage outrage in the Muslim community about killing children. This may not work. Islam may run like organized crime. You dissent, you die. So no outrage.

The other is keep immigrant Muslims out of the coutry. That does work.

Etienne said...

Achilles said...What is a "fake religion?"

Non-Catholic.

buwaya said...

It doesnt matter what is done in Raqqa.
It doesn't matter what organization claims "responsibility".

And its not about this flavor or that of Islam, with some extreme divergent exceptions.
Or of any particular preacher or teacher or propagandist.

And Enoch Powell was right.

Drago said...

William: "Nyamujal posts a thoughtful insight at 9:35. I just don't understand why anyone would want to blow up little girls and then brag about it. The mechanics given in Nyamujal's post seem a useful explanation. It's reassuring to think that there might be some kind of explanation for such behavior.... ...The bombing was an extraordinary manifestation of evil. You would think it would be a one off, but these horrendous events keep repeating."

You MUST understand: this level of violence, targeted as it is at the most vulnerable, is purposely sought out, trained for and designed to sow abject terror. The use of the most astonishing forms of terror is precisely the point: to drive home the fact that these 7th century mentalities are intent upon regaining the entirety of the former Caliphate.

They are completely and utterly committed to that cause and this fervent belief followed by action is not a "one off". It's who the islamist supremacists are.

Mass beheadings, having children targeted while training their own very young children to maim and murder, etc, is all part of the plan.

To drive home the message that the west, which is culturally and "civilizationally" weak, cannot hope to prevail against them.

The left and their establishment allies in the West have already "surrendered" culturally and are utterly incapable of determining who the most likely "volunteers" will be for such activity, whether immigrants (illegal or legal) or the generations of potential "home grown" (which is a complete misnomer) terrorists.

Even to raise the question gets in the way of the lefts political calculus which requires massive unrestrained immigration to achieve permanent political power.

rhhardin said...

What you want is if I draw a cartoon of the prophet, an American muslim will say that it's tasteless but I'm allowed to do it. Free speech, American constitution.

Fernandinande said...

A Muslim suicide bomber dies and goes to paradise, where he finds himself surrounded by 72 of the ugliest, hairiest creatures he has ever laid eyes upon. He starts to complain but an amused Allah says to him, "Why do you think they're still virgins?"

rhhardin said...

They're not after terror. They're after the news cycle.

Nobody's terrified. They're entertained if anything.

Achilles said...

Also, viewing women and children Muslim refugees as potential terrorists only perpetuates the "otherness" of Muslim immigrants. I understand that the Muslim Community also have the responsibility to become a part of the country that has taken them in. It's easier to assimilate if you're not demonized and isolated as a group or because of your religion.

To an extent this is correct. Muslims should be demonized and isolated for their actions, not their religion. They should be demonized and isolated for sharia law and the barbarity that arises from it.

As over 90% of muslims in the world have participated in genocide/ethnic cleansing they should be demonized and isolated for that too.

Bay Area Guy said...

"ISIS claims credit."

Radical muslims murder several innocent British kids at a concert. Duly noted.

And, the Left wing Dems in our country, hire high-priced lawyers to sue their way to stop the President from restricting entry into our country of people from Muslim countries. Duly noted.




J. Farmer said...

GRW3:

Time to load up the B-52s and do an Arc Light strike on Raqqa.

If you were attacking a coherent political group, like a state, such a strategy might make kind of sense. But in the world of diffuse, decentralized, asymmetric violence, such 20th century nation-state tactics are a sure loser. This is a political problem you cannot bomb you're way out of.

Etienne said...

Nixon used this to persuade the North Vietnamese to negotiate.

It didn't work. The enemy has tunnels.

Unless you use MOAB's or Nukes, aerial bombardment is a waste of resources against wide areas.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

Just off the top of my head.

Pretty loose definition of "religion" you've got there.

Achilles said...

Also, viewing women and children Muslim refugees as potential terrorists only perpetuates the "otherness" of Muslim immigrants.

Another key point. The men and women and children in Islam are not equally at fault. The problem would be solved if we removed the men.

buwaya said...

This business is baked-in to Islam, or rather to the culture that made it and is embedded in it, that determines the value system and loyalties even of the irreligious.

The root is that aggression vs the outsider is licensed. There is no universal ethics that takes in even the stranger. There is no "good Samaritan", or Buddhist compassion.

Drago said...

Inga: "It's easier to assimilate if you're not demonized and isolated as a group or because of your religion."

You have this completely backwards.

Large percentages of these immigrants have absolutely no intention whatsoever to assimilate into your (the west's) "decandent" and "immoral" societies.

You think its an economic question because you cannot envision people with a belief so strong that it supersedes any of your western "Maslow's Needs" "understanding".

They don't want to be in your society. They want to force you to live in theirs.

You refuse to believe that. Politically you cannot believe it as it destroys so many of the lefts policy and political outcomes and goals.

So many many more Manchesters are on the way.

David Begley said...

I like the evil losers meme. And Drive Them Out.

In the coming Court of Appeals decision striking the travel ban you can bet Manchester won't be cited. Not relevant until it happens here. Which it will. Recall the Boston Marathon bombing.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Drago said...

"Recall the Boston Marathon bombing"

And Orlando. Both perpetrated by the first generation of children born of muslim immigrants.

Michael said...

Inga

Asians (the word in the UK for people from the ME, Pakistan, etc( have been moving to the UK for twenty five years and for the most part have not assimilated one iota. They were not demonized or isolated by the host country but were welcomed as a potential voting block and supplier of exotic foods. Your assumptions are misplaced. The number of mosques, to further my point, being built in the UK is greater than the closing of Christian churches which is saying something.

In the meantime I think we have plenty of Muslims in the USA thus enriching the tapestry being woven with depictions of a crumbling culture.

Immigration policies are meant to benefit the host country not those hoping to reside in the host country and those qualifying for admission should bring something of value to the country other than their woes.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"A nation-state, in order to function properly, must have a coherent nation that is culturally, politically, and linguistically dominant. A loose immigration policy is almost always folly. "

The mass immigration from Europe that took place in the late 19th and early 20th century caused trepidation among nativists at the time, but was ultimately successful because America was confident in the greatness of her own culture and the children and grandchildren of those immigrants wanted very much to be part of that culture. They might retain sentimental feelings about "the Old Country" but most felt they were leaving a backward and tradition-bound place for a bright new future.

The sense I have now is that many (not all) Muslims see themselves as bringing a superior culture to the West, not leaving a backward one behind. They have nothing but contempt for the decadence and weakness of Western culture, a culture too self-hating and timid to defend itself, and are positioning themselves to dominate.

That's why comparisons to earlier migrations do not work. It's not just the difference in the groups coming here, but a difference in the host country. Our politically correct denigration of our own history and traditions and their sense of Islam on the ascent feed right into each other.

hawkeyedjb said...

" It's easier to assimilate if you're not demonized and isolated as a group or because of your religion."

The Western world has taken in millions of "refugees" from Muslim countries, treated them better than they were treated in their home countries, given them access to the wealth and peace of the West. And you believe, honestly, that this is "demonization?" Truly? Is it really the responsibility of the generous nations to do more, even more, to ensure that every nit of inconvenience, every word of mild disapproval, is eradicated among the host population? It is not "demonization" that drives this evil, it is a simple desire to not live according to the standards of free, civilized societies. It is a story as old as humanity: dependence never creates gratefulness, it only creates resentment. The leaders of most Western nations, like Inga, honestly do believe that it is eternally the fault of the host nation and its racist, deplorable inhabitants that drives Muslims to their vicious works. They will respond, as Inga does, with more pieties expressing their sorrow at our imperfect welcome and the shame of wanting to be civilized. And inevitably, there will be those who, even in the face of murder most awful, will tell us that The Most Important Thing is that we not have any "backlash" against the population that harbors and defends the killers. For in these cases, "backlash" is synonymous with self-defense, and that we cannot have. Not if we are to finish the task of giving our civilization to the barbarous cult that detests us.

Drago said...

At the rate western Europe is going, they will be the Balkans in 25 years, but there will be no US or Europe to step in to stop it then.

Unless something fundamental to our thinking in the West changes, the islamist supremacist dream of the caliphate over all of Europe, a dream from the 8th century, will be fully realized within our childrens or grandchildrens lifetimes.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I don't understand why "women and children" are given a special pass in this case. A woman was one of the San Bern murderers and female suicide bombers are not uncommon in Israel. ISIS is training children to murder.

This is not the same as refugees coming from other places in other eras. There were no female or child Jewish suicide bombers in the 1930's.

Known Unknown said...

"It's easier to assimilate if you're not demonized and isolated as a group or because of your religion."

A lot self-isolate. That is how you get Rotheram, where a Pakistani culture of misogyny was imported directly to Britain. PC platitudes don't work either because the Western law and culture are never allowed to permeate the bubble, lest someone take offense.

Drago said...

exiled: "ISIS is training children to murder."

From a very, very, young age.

Their "Lions" will be sent to live in the West and those "Lions" will be going to school with your children.

If this fact upsets you that's not really my concern.

And if these "Lions" don't get your children, well there are plenty of Beslan-types ready to do the task themselves.

Drago said...

The islamist supremacists are calling young concert-going school girls "Crusaders", and the lefties think all that's missing is a jobs program or there is too much global warming.

If you were an islamist supremacist and you helped murder "Crusader" children and then all you heard were leftists on TV calling out others for Islamaphobia and being "ghouls" for complaining about this wanton slaughter, wouldn't you as the terrorist think that even the Westerners "know" that what the terrorists are doing is "right"?

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

Pretty loose definition of "religion" you've got there.

He asked what a fake religion was. I took that as it is. Groups of people who support and promulgate an idea/cause in a religious way(evangelism, treatment of heresy, indoctrination) that lacks the fundamental characteristics of a religion(i.e. moral codes, afterlife, and such)

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brylun said...

Third Punic War on ISIS.

Sebastian said...

"who was known to British authorities prior to the attack." Even small European countries now have hundreds of terrorism prosecutions per year. Larger ones must track thousands of known wolves. Of course, the problem goes beyond terror. A sizable portion of the regular prison population in France is Muslim. Suspected crimes by refugee migrants in Germany alone rose to over 170K last year. The West has already lost control.

Dude1394 said...

The situation in Britain is starting to resemble stalker laws. Where the authorities can do nothing to someone threatening to kill you, until they kill you.

Michael K said...

viewing women and children Muslim refugees as potential terrorists only perpetuates the "otherness" of Muslim immigrants.

I guess the Palestinian mothers who celebrate their suicide bomber children don't count.

Many, if not most of the "children" immigrating to Europe are military age men.

The mass immigration from Europe that took place in the late 19th and early 20th century caused trepidation among nativists at the time, but was ultimately successful because America was confident in the greatness of her own culture and the children and grandchildren of those immigrants wanted very much to be part of that culture.

They were already part of that culture, which was European. In many ways we are fortunate that the illegal immigration we had had before this has been from Mexico, which shares the European culture. The problem has been with the lack of skills and the volume of immigrants plus the declining economic room for the unskilled.

We simply cannot accept any significant Muslim immigration. High skills are an exception but they are a very small number.

Most skilled Indian immigrants are Hindu.

Inga said...

"Immigration policies are meant to benefit the host country not those hoping to reside in the host country and those qualifying for admission should bring something of value to the country other than their woes."

Absolutely. I didn't indicate this wasn't the case. However we are also a nation that holds the values of mercy and charity dear. It's part of who we are. If we abandon those values because we live in fear, we lose a vital part of what made America great. After WW2 when Germans were loathed and feared because of the atrocities of the Holocaust and Naziism, what did we do? Did we keep them out of the country in fear that they would revive their evil ways and wreak havoc on the streets of America or did we give them mercy and charity? There were thousands and thousands of German refugees that came to these shores because of it. Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Muslims are terrorists, or Islamists.

J. Farmer said...

@exiledonmainstreet:

The mass immigration from Europe that took place in the late 19th and early 20th century caused trepidation among nativists at the time, but was ultimately successful because America was confident in the greatness of her own culture and the children and grandchildren of those immigrants wanted very much to be part of that culture.

Agreed that you cannot assimilate immigrants in a PC, multicultural environment that encourages immigrants to hang onto their past culture and resist adopting a new one. But, the United States also responded to the high immigration of the late 19th and early 20th century by essentially shutting down all immigration into this country by the early 1920s. I'm saying it's time for another moratorium.

Gahrie said...

I'd suggest taking to heart what Trump and Bush and Obama all have said, that the problem doesn't lie within Islam itself

Bush and Obama were both wrong. the problem does lie within Islam itself.

Islam demands that the whole world become Islamic and submit to Allah.

Islam demands that Muslims spread Islam by any means necessary, including violence explicitly.

Islam demands that Muslims lie about Islam to non-Muslims.

Islam rewards Muslims who kill non-Muslims, both in Heaven and on Earth.

Michael K said...

"There were thousands and thousands of German refugees that came to these shores because of it."

Jews for the most part.

"not all Muslims are terrorists, or Islamists."

No but 80% or so agree with Sharia law and want it here. That is not compatible with successful assimilation.

Drago said...

Inga: "After WW2 ...."

Then after we annihilate the islamist supremacists we can talk.

What you are openly advocating for is a "pre-WWII mass immigration of Nazi's and Nazi sympathizers" who are intent upon your destruction simply in order to show how open minded you are (and, of course, gain some short-term political advantages).

Curious George said...

"Achilles said...
I disagree in part. The women and children can be rescued and assimilated. It is the men and the religion they perpetrate that need to go."

Yes like Dzhokhar and Tamerlan "Speed Bump" Tsarnaev were assimilated.

Drago said...

Inga: " Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Muslims are terrorists, or Islamists."

Nuance not afforded Trump voters.

mockturtle said...

The Children's Crusade is apparently on again.

Beat me to it, Paul. It is a sad fact that Islamist ideology has remained unchanged and undeterred over the centuries. It merely comes to a head when opportunity arises. With the decline of Christianity, especially in Europe, there are no real Crusaders today. Heaven knows the Pope is no Crusader. I do believe that this is as much a spiritual battle as a political one.

Rumpletweezer said...

If you're looking for needles in haystacks and you've found some, shouldn't you keep an eye on those instead of demanding more hay?

TWW said...

Korematsu v. United States was never repealed.

Inga said...

No MichaelK, many of them were ethnic gentile Germans that were refugees from Eastern Europe, when after the war they were driven out of the countries since the1700's. I'm not remarking on the rightness or wrongness of this but there were millions of ethnic Germans that were "cleansed" out of Eastern Europe.

America, Canada, Australia and other countries took them in. My family was fortunate to have had relatives that sponsored us and we, after being in refugee status for 10 years were given entry to the US in 1955.

Etienne said...

My neice and her mother just got back from a vacation to Brittany. She said it was all-out war between the French and the Muslims.

The way you can tell, the meat stores (boucheries) all have hate graffiti on their windows. The Muslims against pork, the French against Halal.

The police won't help either. They don't have time for such nonsense.

It's not like the French can go anywhere, and why should they, it's their culture being invaded.

Inga said...

"Inga: "After WW2 ...."

Then after we annihilate the islamist supremacists we can talk.

What you are openly advocating for is a "pre-WWII mass immigration of Nazi's and Nazi sympathizers" who are intent upon your destruction simply in order to show how open minded you are (and, of course, gain some short-term political advantages)."

I think this is the kind of garbage comment Althouse alluded to earlier today on the other thread about terrorism.

Drago said...

mockturtle: "Heaven knows the Pope is no Crusader. I do believe that this is as much a spiritual battle as a political one."

I would add intellectual to spiritual as well.

Unfortunately we are now on about the 4th generation of children educated by the leftists in the Lefts "long march thru the institutions" and those children have been taught that it is the US and the West that is evil, wrong, immoral, not worth defending, etc.

The Left has completely "disarmed" us in the intellectual, spiritual and moral phases of this conflict.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

There are plenty of countries that are much closer to the refugee's culture (i.e. religion, language, etc.) such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar that can take in refugees from Syria. Since the Gulf Arab states have been big players in prolonging the conflict in Syria (even more than the foolish US policy), I'd say they had more direct responsibility to deal with the refugees. Plus, it would make sure that the Gulf states had to put up with the direct consequences of their actions. Of course they're happy to let Europe and America to absorb the consequences of their actions.

Drago said...

Inga: "I think this is the kind of garbage comment Althouse alluded to earlier today on the other thread about terrorism."

You and your political allies cannot distinguish who the would be terrorists are from those that are not. You cannot identify nor do you have any idea which members of follow on generations of islamist immigrants will be prone to mass murder.

Yet you advocate passionately to let millions of them in.

And you are apparently quite angry that some have noticed what has happened in the nations that have done just that.

But what I am writing is "garbage".

Tell that to the parents of the Manchester children. Or the Rotherham parents. Or Berlin. Or Paris. Or Nice. Or Orlando. Or San Bernadino. Or Boston, or.....(the list is becoming quite endless).

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "Of course they're happy to let Europe and America to absorb the consequences of their actions."

J, I think we are missing the clear possibility that the ME nations are not just avoiding the consequences of their actions but following through on a "campaign" with specific geo-political objectives in mind.

Seeing Red said...

I was about to say the same Drago.

After, Inga.

We are beneficent after.



Now let's take it a step further.

Have you hugged a fracker today?


The oil ticks' income is starting to dry up, thanks to US. They aren't known for being economically diversified outside of weapons.

If you think they're mad at us now.....

I asked that question a few years ago.

Achilles said...

Curious George said...

Yes like Dzhokhar and Tamerlan "Speed Bump" Tsarnaev were assimilated.

I believe if you removed the women and children from Islam their rate of psycopathy would be about the same as ours.

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

J, I think we are missing the clear possibility that the ME nations are not just avoiding the consequences of their actions but following through on a "campaign" with specific geo-political objectives in mind.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, but if you're aware of some, I'd be happy to look it over. I don't believe the Gulf Arab states are involved in the Syrian conflict in order to create a refugee crisis. They are fighting a proxy war against the Syrian regime because they'd prefer that country were controlled by Sunnis than by the minority Alawites.

cubanbob said...

"It's easier to assimilate if you're not demonized and isolated as a group or because of your religion."

The presumption is that the group on the whole wants to assimilate but the evidence tends to support the group wants to colonize. Colonists do not assimilate.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Drago said...

J. Farmer: " I don't believe the Gulf Arab states are involved in the Syrian conflict in order to create a refugee crisis."

I agree with you that it's not the established powers that be in the Gulf states driving that aspect of this. However, there are a number of "elites" from that structure that do delve into the islamist supremacist waters. Bin Laden for one as well as other "intellectuals" that underpinned the entire movement, such as Sayyid Qutb from Egypt.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Inga said...

Drago, point out where I said "millions" should be allowed to enter. I advocate passionately to allow women and children refugees from Syria to be allowed in. I haven't said I want the men allowed in and I've even said the men should stay behind and fight the war. Syria is a waste land from wars started by the men. The refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are overloaded and a dangerous place for women and children. Why shouldn't we take pity on the women and children?

J Farmer, it's unfortunate that Trump didn't encourage Saudi Arabia to take in some refugees during his visit there.

tcrosse said...

Inga's sentimental, fairy tale view of recent British history reminds me of an old Noel Coward song.
Don't Let's be Beastly to the Germans

DanTheMan said...

If only all of these young, suicidal, Muslim men who spend time on radical internet sites, attend radical mosques, preach hatred of the west had something in common, we might be able to build some sort of a "profile" of them...

But that would be wrong. Better to have our children blown to bits than to judge people based on their actions and professed beliefs.

Michael K said...

it's unfortunate that Trump didn't encourage Saudi Arabia to take in some refugees during his visit there.

You don't know what was said in private.

I'm trying to be polite.

Inga said...

"You don't know what was said in private."

That might have been something he could've included in his speech to all those Sunni Leaders.

Seeing Red said...

I remember a few years ago there was discussion on a topic, and when it didn't go Inga's way, she started playing the victim. She was being bullied and wanted The Professor to step in.

Pointing out holes in thinking is not bullying.

Asking someone to tighten up their reasoning or to give a more extensive or detailed answer to their thoughts is not bullying.

It's trying to find a baseline or common ground to continue the discussion.

hawkeyedjb said...

"At least we can't blame the attack on a video this time."

We can, and will, always blame the West, the host nations, the generous ones. The video was just a substitute for the more-general "demonization." But if it wasn't that, our surrender-first cadre would come up with something. They always do.

Anthony said...

Funny, I figured it would be a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian or something because I have been assured that hardly any terrorism is attributable to Islam.

DanTheMan said...

>>it's unfortunate that Trump didn't encourage Saudi Arabia to take in some refugees during his visit there.

The Saudis are allowed to decide who enters their country. But we are not, of course. Everybody on the entire planet has some sort of "right" to come here. That's the new rule.

Don't worry, Dr. K. I'll save a spot for you in the re-education camp.


J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

However, there are a number of "elites" from that structure that do delve into the islamist supremacist waters. Bin Laden for one as well as other "intellectuals" that underpinned the entire movement, such as Sayyid Qutb from Egypt.

I do not agree that they are part of the "elites form that structure." The radical salafist critique offered by bin Laden applied much more to the Saudi regime than it did the "west." Bin Laden's critique of the Saudi royal family, that they are power-hungry opportunists who indulge the clerical staff but prefer the decadence of the west, is a pretty accurate critique. Plus, bin Laden was never an intellectual but a businessman. The Islamic clerical establishment was pretty united against Bin Laden, particularly that he was not permitted to issue fatwas.

exiledonmainstreet said...

J. Farmer wrote: "But, the United States also responded to the high immigration of the late 19th and early 20th century by essentially shutting down all immigration into this country by the early 1920s"

Yes, and the history of that is quite interesting and widely misunderstood. I thought for a long that it was due simply to prejudice and nativism. It wasn't until fairly recently that I learned Congress was reacting to a long line of terrorist attacks, many of them committed by anarchists from Central Europe. There was a Wall Street bomb attack in 1919 that killed something like 70 people, for instance.

The difference was that the anarchists attacked the elites, so the elites acted to protect themselves. Today, the elites feel safe and ordinary people are told to suck it up.

Also, the draw bridge was pulled up because the need for mass cheap imported labor had been met.

While I certainly consider myself fortunate that my ancestors got over here before the cutoff, from the POV of the country, the period between 1924 and 1965 allowed the immigrants who were here to fully assimilate rather than staying locked in their own ethnic enclaves.

Mike said...

J Farmer, it's unfortunate that Trump didn't encourage Saudi Arabia to take in some refugees during his visit there.

And you know this how?

Because I've seen definite stories about setting up a safe zone that you have overlooked somehow. It seems like the kind of comment one extracts from a sphincter instead of from the news.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

J Farmer, it's unfortunate that Trump didn't encourage Saudi Arabia to take in some refugees during his visit there.

Among many other things. It's a very bad habit of the United States to feel compelled to "reassure" clients, especially when that reassurance is in the form of support for the client's dumb, reckless behavior (e.g. Syria and Yemen). I've been arguing for the US to take a much firmer stand against the Arab states for two decades now.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mockturtle said...

Drago link: The Left has completely "disarmed" us in the intellectual, spiritual and moral phases of this conflict.

And they seek to disarm us in the physical, literal sense, as well.

Michael said...

Inga
"I think this is the kind of garbage comment Althouse alluded to earlier today on the other thread about terrorism."

Wrong. I think our hostess would prefer that you debunk the accusation that there are political motives to your stated position. Your response here is a passive aggressive version of what she decried.

And the culture of Europeans whether German or Eastern Europeans has never been incompatible with the culture of the US. Language was the only impediment for the most part from total assimilation. Europeans shared in the long traditions of literature, music, architecture, all foundational for assimilation.

Seeing Red said...

"Point out where I said millions."

I haven't been around in awhile.

So, Inga, where do you stand on open borders and "undocumented" persons?


Maybe you did, I don't know.

It is part and parcel of this discussion from a certain POV.

Inga said...

"Because I've seen definite stories about setting up a safe zone that you have overlooked somehow. It seems like the kind of comment one extracts from a sphincter instead of from the news."

Interesting. Could you link to articles that says this was part of the discussions in Saudi Arabia? I know Clinton was in favor of setting up safe zones. I haven't heard much of this from Trump.

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
buwaya said...

"I think we are missing the clear possibility that the ME nations are not just avoiding the consequences of their actions "

That's exactly what they are doing, it isn't a plot. Large scale transfer of these "foreign" populations is an unacceptable political risk to these countries, even if the refugees are religiously compatible. The Arabs understand the risks inherent in each other much better than the West does.

The tribalism is intense. An example of what they have to worry about is the case of the once-numerous Palestinian contract workers in Kuwait - that is, mainly Sunni Muslims in a conservative Sunni Muslim country. When Saddam Hussein took Kuwait very many of them were enthusiastically in favor (many others fled though, I knew such a family), opposing the native Kuwaitis, because of course Saddam especially actively supported their political cause, and also because the Kuwaitis had not always been nice to them. They took an active role in suppressing the Kuwaiti resistance. When the Kuwaiti regime was restored, those Palestinians that had not fled at some point were expelled.

J. Farmer said...

@exiledonmainstreet:

It wasn't until fairly recently that I learned Congress was reacting to a long line of terrorist attacks, many of them committed by anarchists from Central Europe.

Yes and no. The 1924 Immigration Act certainly restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. But it also banned Arabs and Asians, who were not involved in anarchist violence.

There was a Wall Street bomb attack in 1919 that killed something like 70 people, for instance.

It was in 1920 and had killed 30 people. But as you say, there had been a string of bombings the previous year. And in 1901, an anarchist murdered a sitting president (McKinley), though he was born in the US and not an immigrant.

While I certainly consider myself fortunate that my ancestors got over here before the cutoff, from the POV of the country, the period between 1924 and 1965 allowed the immigrants who were here to fully assimilate rather than staying locked in their own ethnic enclaves.

Plus, in the pre-PC/multicultural days, assimilation was a much more ruthless machine. As it should be. Pick up any cheap travel book in the store and they all have the same cliched advice: adapt yourself to local customs and don't expect locals to adapt to you. Otherwise, you're being an ugly American. And I agree. But we should have the same expectation of immigrants...that they largely ditch their home custom and adopt new ones. People that are unwilling to do that probably should not emigrate.

Mike said...

It's almost laughable, just Googling "safe zones syria," how many stories mention the Saudis agreeing to the concept. Guess that apposite story went right back in the orifice a certain commenter had pulled it from.

Rene Saunce said...

"Crusaders" -- interesting choice.

Obama/the left hate/blame "crusaders" - or "the crusades." Must time travel back centuries to mine for victims and make excuses for death cult circa now.

Owen said...

Buwaya: "Of course. If it wasnt ISIS, it would be some other random name... What's constant is the culture and the psychology behind it."

Word. So how do we deal with this? I worry about tipping points, where we go from absurd PC capitulation right over to pogroms and carpet-bombing. This ideology scales up too easily to Armageddon.

5/23/17, 9:40 AM

CStanley said...

Just putting this here as a bit of relief that there's still sanity and good people:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angel-manchester-hailed-hero-after-10482573

Seeing Red said...

Ahh, Titanic.

Jack: I'm an American, I don't have lice. Or something like that.

buwaya said...

"Plus, in the pre-PC/multicultural days, assimilation was a much more ruthless machine. As it should be. "

You need to recreate this. The exact opposite is happening. The tribalist-separatist ideology, in various flavors, is taught with great energy throughout your public schools. It is yet another bit of insanity, to take your recent immigrants and indoctrinate them in hatred (and this is plain fact, not hyperbole) of the nation and its other peoples.

Hagar said...

Actually I think Saudi Arabia has a lot more refugees within their borders than they are comfortable with, but they are known as "guest workers" rather than "refugees" since they are all supposedly part of the same "umma."

Inga said...

"And I agree. But we should have the same expectation of immigrants...that they largely ditch their home custom and adopt new ones. People that are unwilling to do that probably should not emigrate."

This is basic and easy to agree with. Who doesn't think that immigrants shouldn't try to assimilate in gone country that took them in? I think it's possible, even by Muslims.

buwaya said...

"Who doesn't think that immigrants shouldn't try to assimilate in gone country that took them in?"

The US public school system. They specialize in teaching grievance and promoting tribalism and communal hatred.

Rick said...

Did we keep them out of the country in fear that they would revive their evil ways and wreak havoc on the streets of America or did we give them mercy and charity? There were thousands and thousands of German refugees that came to these shores because of it.

It's quite obtuse to start with the premise everything is equal and conclude that therefore everything is equal. This analysis completely lacks imagination and understanding.

Our institutions venerate identity politics in an effort to undermine traditional western values which they view as racist or inhibiting progress. This pressures immigrants to adopt their cultures of origin. Since Islam has never fully excised Islamic Triumphalism the result is some material percentage of people will adopt it, and this explains why so many terrorists in the west are children of immigrants rather than immigrants themselves. The combination is toxic.

After WWII did American institutions claim the cultures of others were valid while denigrating our own? So why would anyone expect the same outcomes? There's a reason people aren't nearly as unhappy with Vietnamese immigration (to pick an example). It's not bigotry as small minded people allege, it's that the originating culture doesn't include this nonsense.

Hagar said...

The Saudis are somewhat in a situation like the Bourbons of 1785 even with respect to their own people - never mind the "guest workers." They would like to climb down, but how to do it without losing their heads?

Michael said...

Inga:
"And I agree. But we should have the same expectation of immigrants...that they largely ditch their home custom and adopt new ones. People that are unwilling to do that probably should not emigrate."

This is basic and easy to agree with. Who doesn't think that immigrants shouldn't try to assimilate in gone country that took them in? I think it's possible, even by Muslims.
-----------
So it would be OK to demand that veils, burkas, etc be ditched? It being basic.

n.n said...

[class] diversity continues to reap rewards. It's good for demographic gerrymandering, redistributive change (e.g. welfare profits), and political progress, but it is an unsustainable doctrine that normalizes prejudice.

We'll soon find out if Martin Luther King, Jr's insight about judging people by the content of their character (e.g. principles) or the left and alt-center's normalization of judging people by the "color of their skin" is the correct treatment.

Ann Althouse said...

Please try harder to follow the advice about commenting in the earlier post.

I took out a few offending posts, but there are srill to many that address each other by name and in a negative way. There's back and forth that drives other readers away.

Michael K said...

I know Clinton was in favor of setting up safe zones. I haven't heard much of this from Trump.

Clinton was all about virtue signaling. I don;t even know which Clinton you are referring to. Bill Clinton made a valid effort to solve the Palestinian problem in 2000. You should read Dennis Ross' explanation of what happened.

Hillary Clinton is all about graft and corruption.

Trump has a long history of private negotiation. Public insulting of allies is an Obama specialty and we see how that worked.

I'm trying to be polite.

Inga said...

Regarding banning the burka, etc. I believe that's being done in several European countries already.

n.n said...

The population selected to replace Planned natives, to take up the slack created by social dysfunction, to increase profits from insourcing, and to disenfranchise unPlanned natives seem a bit impatient to reap the rewards of leftist/globalist dreams.

DR Judge said...

Inga's family came here after WWII because "ethnic Germans were cleansed from Eastern Europe." Those same ethnic Germans who relocated to east and took over homes, farms and businesses seized by the Nazis? Who moved into Hitler's Lebensraum dreamland in Poland and other subjugated territories? Who over the centuries had occupied and tried to destroy those 'inferior' Slavic peoples, cultures and religions? Each and every one a good German!

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

You need to recreate this. The exact opposite is happening.

Preaching to the choir here. It has been my primary political focus (along with less interventionism) my entire adult life. Granted, that's only been 17 years, but still. I agree with Steve Sailer's formulation that the US is practicing a strategy of "invade the world, invite the world." I'd like to do a lot less of both.

@Inga:

This is basic and easy to agree with.

I concur that it is "basic and easy to agree with," but as George Orwell famously remarked, tTo see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle."

Angel-Dyne said...

hawkeyedjb: The Western world has taken in millions of "refugees" from Muslim countries, treated them better than they were treated in their home countries, given them access to the wealth and peace of the West. And you believe, honestly, that this is "demonization?" Truly? Is it really the responsibility of the generous nations to do more, even more, to ensure that every nit of inconvenience, every word of mild disapproval, is eradicated among the host population? It is not "demonization" that drives this evil, it is a simple desire to not live according to the standards of free, civilized societies. It is a story as old as humanity: dependence never creates gratefulness, it only creates resentment. The leaders of most Western nations, like Inga, honestly do believe that it is eternally the fault of the host nation and its racist, deplorable inhabitants that drives Muslims to their vicious works.

I'd take that back a step. Even if the host populations were "xenophobic" and unwelcoming, how does that excuse anything? Why do the natives have to like what the newcomers bring? Why can't they find the behavior and the culture and the attitudes of the newcomers distasteful, even threatening? (Some of it is threatening to the culture of the natives.) Nobody forced the newcomers to migrate to the West, and the natives were not consulted about the mass importation of members of alien cultures. Rather, it was imposed on them against their own preferences, by people whose money and position insulates them from the consequences of their policies. All said, no matter how much the propaganda pretends otherwise, the natives didn't ask for 'em and would rather they weren't there.

Btw, during the mass migrations of U.S. history (prudently punctuated by a long moratorium when it all got to be too much), the natives were pretty much allowed to express whatever they damned well pleased about the newcomers (and some of the negative commentary, contrary to sentimentalist revision, was perfectly well justified). Panglossians invoking those times would do well to remember that.

Jack Wayne said...

Buwaya, what do you know about Duterte declaring martial law in the southern Phillipines after a Muclim attack? Is this the area that they control or is it a new area they are trying to subvert?

Rusty said...

If they are going to refer to themselves as "soldiers" then perhaps we should treat them all as potential soldiers. Since I am always a potential victim of Islamic violence this would be prudent, no?

J. Farmer said...

Re: "safe zones"

They are a terrible idea. They would require a substantial ground force to protect them, and such a force would not only be open to attack from the radical jihadists but could also get into conflict with Syrian regime forces. The best option for the US is to get out of Syria...stop trying to train and equip forces to attack the government, and wish the Russians lots of luck in propping up their client. The best insurance we have against a Syria overrun with jihadists is a Syria in which the central government has control over the country. As we have repeatedly learned from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya...when you cut the head off the hydra, several more even nastier heads are likely to sprout in their place.

Michael said...

Inga

Yes, but not here. Would you be in favor of a ban on burkas here in the United States? Now? It is a yes or no question to which I do not expect you to answer, btw

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

If they are going to refer to themselves as "soldiers" then perhaps we should treat them all as potential soldiers.

Who is "them all?" And what would that policy actually look like in the real world? In other words, what precisely are you advocating?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"It was in 1920 and had killed 30 people"

Thanks for the correction. I was trying to remember the details of a book I read a while back.

Sacco and Vanzetti were perhaps the most famous foreign born anarchists of the time. And they were the darlings of the intellectuals then and portrayed as innocent victims in the decades since. In fact, the bastards were almost certainly guilty.

Achilles said...

"I think this is the kind of garbage comment Althouse alluded to earlier today on the other thread about terrorism."

The left always calls on authority to eliminate opposing viewpoints.

Ann Althouse said...
Please try harder to follow the advice about commenting in the earlier post.

I took out a few offending posts, but there are srill to many that address each other by name and in a negative way. There's back and forth that drives other readers away.


The inevitable next step. When they lose arguments or have their perfidy highlighted they will shit in the bed until the whole forum is ruined.

This is the left. It is one of their patterns. This is a key to understanding their strategies and goals. It is also why they aligned themselves with radical Islam because they have the same goals and use similar methods.

n.n said...

The rate of immigration cannot exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before one-child or selective-child (Pro-Choice/abortion) policies and native people left in urban ghettos and increasingly suburban islands through redistributive change and demographic gerrymandering. The proponents of elective wars and immigration reform have an unreconciled conflict of interest.

mockturtle said...

From Le Québécois Libre by Ralph Maddocks: "The Muslim tradition divides the world into two parts, Dar al Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al Harb, the “field of war” where the infidels live, something we might do well to remember."

Michael K said...

This thread is getting too long and will soon be infested with you-know-who.

William said...

The Slavs, Irish, Italians and Jews who emigrated here had their share of grudges and hatred, but those grudges were not directed at America. They suffered from some amount of discrimination here, but Americans were never the enemy. They, or, at least, their children felt American styles and culture were worth emulating........ I'm not so sure that's true of middle eastern refugees. I'm pretty sure that they lay the blame for the mess in their countries on America and Israel far more than on Saddam, Assad, Qaddafi, or--God forbid--on Islam. I just don't see the point in importing people who hate us. I would give some consideration to Coptics, Yakidizis and others who flee persecution, but I would not offer the same courtesy to their oppressors.

Michael said...

There are solutions, of course. The least terrible would be to inform those of Pakistani origin that they will be returned to Pakistan, UK citizen or not, in the event there is a terrorist act by a Pakistani. A bit of internal policing should follow that especially if the example was already set by there being no more Saudis or Yemenis in the UK. In the alternative there could be a high level thread issued to the whole of Islam that if there is one single more incident of terrorism in the name of Islam that Mecca will become glass.

mockturtle said...

To clarify, from an article in Le Québécois Libre by Maddocks.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

Who is "them all?" And what would that policy actually look like in the real world? In other words, what precisely are you advocating?

The Caliphate and everyone who thinks they live in it.

The policy in the real world would be to attack them until they surrender unconditionally and agree to terms. Historically this requires a reduction in the population of military age males by about 30% by violent means but it could be less if they agree to surrender sooner. The sooner has only happened once, Japan WWII, where one side demonstrated overwhelming power and the will to use it.

The terms would be that members of the Caliphate reform their religion in such a way as it is compatible with a tolerant modern society. They stop killing infidels and apostates. They stop generally acting like barbarians and mutilating their women.

walter said...

Nail Violence..with the promise of further Car Violence.
Maybe a car with a nail bomb inside?
Hybrid tech, ISIS style.

Inga said...

"Inga's family came here after WWII because "ethnic Germans were cleansed from Eastern Europe." Those same ethnic Germans who relocated to east and took over homes, farms and businesses seized by the Nazis? Who moved into Hitler's Lebensraum dreamland in Poland and other subjugated territories? Who over the centuries had occupied and tried to destroy those 'inferior' Slavic peoples, cultures and religions? Each and every one a good German!"

While this may be true of some Germans during the 1930's, my own ancestors left Germany in 1720. They spent roughly 100 years in what became Hungary, then moved further south to would eventually become Yugoslavia. They didn't take over anybodies farms, the land lay fallow and was mostly swampland. They farmed those lands. They were Yugoslavian citizens. They spoke Croation and a dialect of German. They served in the Croatian Army, as my own father did. I suggest you study up on the Donauschwaben people, how and when the emigrated and pioneered the lands in the east at the suggestion of the Queen Maria Theresa of the Austria Hungary empires in the 1700s.

MaxedOutMama said...

And the child of Libyan refugees to the UK. Sad!!!

My take on this is that only the Muslims can fix their problem, and steps should be taken to ensure that they desire to fix it. All else can only lead to more violence.

As it is now, Muslims in the West are too often paraded and feted as a victim class even while many of their own neither support the legal structures of the lands they live in, nor the the Western/Buddhist cultural precept of tolerance for others and non-violence. It is not surprising at all that so many of the children get sucked into overt violence when the internal culture and theology supports the rightness of that violence. The situation is not subtle or ambiguous.

In many of the "peaceful" mosques and Muslim organizations in Britain, it is actively preached that you should not be a friend to non-Muslims, etc.

The West is no haven for individuals who want to live under sharia. We have an absolute conflict with all those people. We wouldn't let Communists in, we wouldn't let Nazis in, we wouldn't let anarchists in - why should we let Muslims who want to live under sharia in?

To me it's very simple. I don't have any moral conflicts about it. If you are going to make me pick between Jews and Muslims, I will pick the Jews. If you are going to make me pick between gays and Muslims, I will pick the gays. If you are going to make me pick between Buddhists and Muslims, I will pick the Buddhists. If you are going to make me pick between Ahmadis and all other Muslims (Ahmadis are not considered to be Muslims by any other Muslim groups), I will pick the Ahmadis. If you are going to make me pick between atheists and Muslims, I will pick the atheists. The problem is that orthodox Muslim theology does make me make those choices. When they change that, I will be able to change. Not before.

So I am okay with letting in religious minorities, gays, atheists, and individuals with special medical needs from the countries with large orthodox Muslim majorities, but no one else.

DanTheMan said...

>>If they are going to refer to themselves as "soldiers" then perhaps we should treat them all as potential soldiers.

>Who is "them all?" And what would that policy actually look like in the real world? In other > words, what precisely are you advocating?

I'd advocate taking them at their word. They are soldiers.
Soldiers captured behind friendly lines and not in uniform are spies. Convicted spies get shot.

JPS said...

Michael K,

"This thread is getting too long and will soon be infested with you-know-who."

The thread was doing quite well there for awhile, a substantive back and forth staying off personal grounds. Ah well.

Backing up to your first comment about Known Wolves: I would be very interested to know, and compare, the ratios of false positives to false negatives in the US and in our western European allies. Quite a few recent attacks followed by counterterrorism officials replying like Basil Exposition: "Yes, we knew all along, sadly."

So I wonder: For every one who's on the radar who we count as not a threat, how many people are we and our allies looking closely at, who turn out to be harmless? Many fewer; many more; same ballpark?

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

The policy in the real world would be to attack them until they surrender unconditionally and agree to terms.

Who is "them?" The Caliphate is not a state in any meaningful sense of the word. They largely ave no legitimacy among their population and there is no sovereign capable of signing a treaty and binding its terms. The enemy is diffuse, decentralized, and asymmetric. Pretty much the opposite of the conflicts that consumed US foreign policy in the early to mid-20th century. Trying to force the round hole of Islamic jihadism into the square peg of 20th century nation-state warfare is a sure loser, from my perspective.

n.n said...

J. Farmer:

Safe zones could work in cooperation with Syria and Russia. They would facilitate the end of the conflict and mitigate the refugee crisis. We would, of course, have to rebuild what we broke. The alternatives are to leave them to their fate or redistribute survivors around the world, which is the preferred solution but is corrupted by conflicts of interest.

Achilles said...

Michael said...
There are solutions, of course. The least terrible would be to inform those of Pakistani origin that they will be returned to Pakistan, UK citizen or not, in the event there is a terrorist act by a Pakistani. A bit of internal policing should follow that especially if the example was already set by there being no more Saudis or Yemenis in the UK. In the alternative there could be a high level thread issued to the whole of Islam that if there is one single more incident of terrorism in the name of Islam that Mecca will become glass.

This is the only solution to the Caliphate that results in the religion of Islam becoming compatible with a tolerant modern society.

But there is a catch. There is an ideological movement in the West that has made common cause with the islamists and refuses to accept it must reform. You can see them right here in this forum.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Btw, during the mass migrations of U.S. history (prudently punctuated by a long moratorium when it all got to be too much), the natives were pretty much allowed to express whatever they damned well pleased about the newcomers (and some of the negative commentary, contrary to sentimentalist revision, was perfectly well justified)."

Thomas Sowell's book "Ethnic America" mentioned that the Irish were in fact,(and true to stereotype), difficult for other ethnic groups to live with because of their quarrelsomeness. Blacks began moving to Harlem to get away from the Irish. The Italians contributed many good things to American life, including pizza and marinara sauce, but the Mafia was not one of the good things.

In today's climate, one would be forbidden to notice or comment on such things.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@DanTheMan:

I'd advocate taking them at their word. They are soldiers.
Soldiers captured behind friendly lines and not in uniform are spies. Convicted spies get shot.


Well, this "soldier" just blew himself to smithereens. So I'm not sure what tactical use a threat of execution would deter.

William said...

The Manchester bombing was an extremely hateful act. Short of bombing the Children's Ward of a cancer hospital, I can't think of a more hateful act. We're told that our response to the murder and mutilation of little girls should be measured and prudent. Oh, fuck off.

MaxedOutMama said...

Btw, I can date my seemingly inhumane conclusions from the day I read the statements of the father of the Pulse killer. There that horrible man was, trying to blame the crime on a couple of gay men kissing in the street. He should not be here. His family should not be here. The Pulse killer transferred his interest in the house to one of the brothers of the wife a few month before the murders. The wife knew. They all are terrible people with a terrible ideology and no shame for their own vileness. It's time for us all to start telling the truth. It's time for us all to stop making excuses for CAIR, which wants to rewrite the US Constitution to its own design. It's time to stop nurturing this beast.

For heaven's sake, Jordan has barred the Syrians in the Rukban camp entirely. The only ones it allows to cross the border are those in need of urgent medical treatment, and once they are treated, they must go back. They won't even open the borders for aid - supplies are moved in by crane now. Why? Because the Jordanians, who are Muslim, hate and demonize Muslims? I don't think so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/20/520857305/along-syria-jordan-border-refugees-struggle-at-a-camp-aid-workers-cant-visit

This is not Inga's "demonization", but a recognition of reality on Jordan's part. They cannot let the innocents in because they can't distinguish the innocents from the murderers. This people have an ideological plague they carry with them.

This is hard for me. One of my best friends in college, Amir - one of the best human beings I have ever met - was from Pakistan and was a Muslim. But I'm in my mid-50s. It is Islam which has changed since then. Look around. See the cheering crowds in Indonesia a day ago as those two gay guys were publicly flogged. The authorities had to get the crowd to calm down and back off, telling the CROWD that the two men being beaten were "human too".

Comey needed to go, not because he's investigating Flynn, but because under his command and control, the FBI were forbidden from using social media as evidence for Islamic extremism/terrorist sympathies. That alone tells you something - it was Islamic groups that were writing the rules. We all saw how well that worked out, didn't we? Comey can only be a purely political animal who is blind to his own blind spots.

I am quite sure that most other Americans are going to make the same choices as I am making. Gays, atheists, Buddhists, animists, trannies etc all just want to live. They don't want to rule the world and kill other people.

When Muslims want to rejoin the human race, we will all be happy to welcome them back with open arms. Until then, they can keep their own countries and we will all observe with interest as those societies revert to hellholes. Let them live in their own mess. It's damn sure not our doing.

walter said...

Whenever these things happen, I wonder why they don't focus on large numbers of extremely random but smaller acts of terrorism to suggest nowhere is safe.
Maybe that's coming..just wondering why it hasn't happened more here.
It would be very interesting to see what intel has been gathered but not available to the public.

Drago said...

"The radical salafist critique offered by bin Laden applied much more to the Saudi regime than it did the "west." Bin Laden's critique of the Saudi royal family, that they are power-hungry opportunists who indulge the clerical staff but prefer the decadence of the west, is a pretty accurate critique. Plus, bin Laden was never an intellectual but a businessman. The Islamic clerical establishment was pretty united against Bin Laden, particularly that he was not permitted to issue fatwas."

I don't think we are in disagreement.

I gave Bin Laden as an example of an economic elite and Qutb as an intellectual leader.

Both of those were simply examples of how the elites from those countries do spawn a few "one off" radicals.

TwilightofLiberty.com said...

Curious how all these misunderstanders of islam all misunderstand it in the same way. How come they never misunderstand it in a way that doesnt include mass slaughter?

DanTheMan said...

>>Well, this "soldier" just blew himself to smithereens. So I'm not sure what tactical use a threat of execution would deter.

You've missed my point.
There is no need to wait for the attack. Once he demonstrates allegiance to a foreign power (ISIS, the Caliphate, etc.), he is acting as a soldier. A single statement or act establishes that.
The lack of a uniform makes him an unlawful combatant (a spy), and thus not afforded POW protections.
Off to a military tribunal, and if convicted, the firing squad.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

Who is "them?" The Caliphate is not a state in any meaningful sense of the word. They largely ave no legitimacy among their population and there is no sovereign capable of signing a treaty and binding its terms. The enemy is diffuse, decentralized, and asymmetric. Pretty much the opposite of the conflicts that consumed US foreign policy in the early to mid-20th century. Trying to force the round hole of Islamic jihadism into the square peg of 20th century nation-state warfare is a sure loser, from my perspective.

The west tried to put national borders in the ME and I agree that was pretty dumb.

But the Caliphate is very much a state. It is very organized and it has leaders who are prominent and easily identified. Islam is as regimented and top down as Catholicism is. If Catholics were parading around the world killing heathens and setting up rape/slavery markets the best solution would be to invade and invest Rome and start stringing up pontiffs. Then you start going around the world and dragging in offending bishops until they surrender and reform.

In the case of Catholicism this already happened once very recently when they had the child rape issue. Every priest was held accountable and every catholic was chagrined until they cleaned up their act. Do the same with Islam. It will be the cleanest way and involve the least carnage.

DanTheMan said...

>>Off to a military tribunal, and if convicted, the firing squad.

I should have added: If they want to die for their beliefs, then this accomplishes that. But on our terms, not theirs. And with no children being blown to bits in the process.

DanTheMan said...

>> Short of bombing the Children's Ward of a cancer hospital,

It just hasn't occurred to them yet.

Inga said...

"When Muslims want to rejoin the human race, we will all be happy to welcome them back with open arms."

So is your friend Amir from Pakistan, no longer human?

Michael K said...

"The thread was doing quite well there for awhile, a substantive back and forth staying off personal grounds. Ah well."

Seems to be holding so far, Afternoons are when problems arise.

Well, this "soldier" just blew himself to smithereens. So I'm not sure what tactical use a threat of execution would deter.

Reoffending.

JohnAnnArbor said...

It just hasn't occurred to them yet.

This young lady wanted to blow up the hospital that was treating her for burns.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

That Muslim prof who voted for Trump (outed by C. Fair) would be an interesting commenter here.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Inga: Why shouldn't we take pity on the women and children?

Because too many of them will abuse your pity and murder innocent people.

urbane legend said...

Etienne said...
Achilles said...What is a "fake religion?"

Non-Catholic.

The opinion you hold is entirely your own. Calvinists and Baptists hold a decidedly different view, with equal justification.

Not intended to be rude or start a discussion or argument.

exiledonmainstreet said...

How many times do we have to point out that plenty of women have been suicide bombers and terrorists? One took part in the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-hayat-boumeddiene-watch-4965701

Others aided and abetted their terrorist husbands, as was done in Orlando.

This silly insistence that women are somehow free of the urge to commit terrorism has no basis in fact.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Non-Catholic.

The opinion you hold is entirely your own. Calvinists and Baptists hold a decidedly different view, with equal justification."

The time when we were killing each other over those views is blessedly over.

(And before someone brings up Northern Ireland, I would say that the Troubles there in the last decades of the 20th century had more to do with economic and social status and less to do with differing opinions about the Virgin Birth or the papacy.)

Fen said...

The Nazi analogy fails. After WW2 we put known Nazis back into administrative positions because they were necessary to rebuild Germany.

Islam is a different animal entirely. Assigning western preconceptions to the Jihad is shallow and naive.

Mark Caplan said...

Rue, Britanistan!

Bad Lieutenant said...

I don't believe the Gulf Arab states are involved in the Syrian conflict in order to create a refugee crisis.

Erdogan for one alluded to this pretty nakedly with his 'every Turk in Germany should have five kids' spiel. Of course Turkey is not a "Gulf Arab state," if that matters.

BTW, and I must then name you J, you're indifferent, IIRC, to the forms of government practiced by the Arabs, as they are all bad (do I have that right or close to it?). Are you indifferent to the (re-)Islamicization of Turkey?

MaxedOutMama said...

Inga, the horror of it is that if he has not gotten out of Pakistan, they killed him. Because he really was that nice a guy. If I had the guts I'd try to track him down and find out. But I don't. Because I'm afraid he's dead.

Inga, in Pakistan, they built a shrine to the guy who murdered the politician who dared to oppose the blasphemy law, Salman Taseer:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/01/201114115730846269.html

Amir is out or dead.

buwaya said...

"Buwaya, what do you know about Duterte declaring martial law in the southern Phillipines after a Muclim attack? Is this the area that they control or is it a new area they are trying to subvert?"

Some background -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/duterte-declares-martial-law-on-southern-philippine-island-of-mindanao/2017/05/23/cf77fcae-3fd0-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html

The battle was in Marawi City, which is the capital of the old Muslim region of Lanao, which is the region around the inland Lake Lanao. This is a typical random-anarchic matter typical of the Moros, involving yet another of the alphabet soup of militant movements among them. Traditionally, Lanao was darkest Moroland, one of their main strongholds. The others were the islands of Jolo and Basilan, and the Cotabato plains.

It is a Muslim-majority province -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanao_del_Sur

This was the other region (besides Jolo island) through which Pershing and Leonard Wood did most of their campaigning, and where they took dozens of cottas.

You will find a great deal in detail about Lanao here - "The Moro War", James Arnold, available on Amazon Kindle.

Why Duterte declared martial Law for the whole of Mindanao island is a puzzlement though, and disturbing.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Not intended to be rude or start a discussion or argument.



urbane, not to get into ad homs, but Etienne is trolling. He will say much crazier isht than that if you keep reading. I used to push back when he posted under other names but now I just let him be.

Fen said...

Also, the terrorist wasn't a lone wolf. He has a logistical trail that often includes women. He was shelteredbby women, he was fed by women, his earlier wounds were tended by women, and a woman likely purchased the nails she knew he would use for his IED.

I don't understand where this blind spor comes from. Maybe the American bias that men are evil and women aren't responsible for their own

buwaya said...

"The enemy is diffuse, decentralized, and asymmetric."

This is nothing new. In fact it is typical.
Every once and a while the harassment sort of war that these diffuse points of hostility congeals into an inspired mass movement, which then falls apart, reverting, again, to the normal decentralized raiding behavior. That is Muslim history.

To revert once again to my own favorite example, the Moro threat, of raids into Christian islands in the Philippines, was almost never sanctioned by their nominal overlord, the Sultan of Jolo. The Spanish and the Americans and the Filipinos had endless treaties with this potentate, including, then and now, all sorts of tribute and subsidies in exchange for his guarantee of peace. But his people were, then and now, uncontrollable, and would take to their boats to raid whenever they felt inspired to.

The only way to keep them suppressed, then and now, was military occupation and constant patrols.

This is the case all along the "bloody borders", and the only solution is a separation of peoples and an impenetrable border.

mockturtle said...

Urbane legend asserts: Calvinists and Baptists hold a decidedly different view, with equal justification.

Not entirely true. Many Baptist sects are Calvinist in their basic doctrine e.g., the sovereignty of God in salvation. This is in opposition to the 'free will' Methodist tenet.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"This is the case all along the "bloody borders", and the only solution is a separation of peoples and an impenetrable border." And the unshakable determination to take 10 eyes for an eye. Call it the Martel option.

But some of the bloody borders now run through European cities.

Birches said...

@Johnannarbor

Thanks for sharing that story, but now I feel sick. Charity is a hard feeling to have when there are people like that in the world.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 421   Newer› Newest»