Archive for the ‘Formerly Great Britain’ category

Fred Fleitz: ‘We May Have Generations of Radical Islamists in the U.K. Unless the British Government Wakes Up’

June 5, 2017

Fred Fleitz: ‘We May Have Generations of Radical Islamists in the U.K. Unless the British Government Wakes Up’, BreitbartJohn Hayward, June 5, 2017

ODD ANDERSEN/AFP/Getty

“I think 9/11 was a wake-up call. You could just see how Republicans and Democrats in Washington were working together against the threat. Now we’re challenged by political correctness, and people who are in denial, and don’t want to the let the government take the steps it has to take to go after radical Islam,” Fleitz reflected.

“Whenever there’s a radical Islamic terrorist attack, we get these lectures about Islamophobia from our leaders, leaders in the U.K. I think that is really hobbling the ability of our government to go after this threat, and that’s unfortunate. I hope what happened in London will be a wake-up call, but I’m worried in a few weeks we’ll be lectured about Islamophobia again,” he said.

***************************

Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy joined SiriusXM host Joel Pollak on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily to talk about the London Bridge terror attack.

Pollak began by asking if the London Bridge attack would finally provide the wake-up call needed for those who underestimate or downplay the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism.

“A lot of people who were in denial almost say the right thing after these events. They sort of can’t help themselves,” Fleitz replied.

“But what really concerns me is that yes, it’s right we have to improve security – we need better outreach, we need better intelligence – but there’s something they’re not talking about in the U.K. that really needs to be focused on: the role that the failure to assimilate British Muslims has created the situation,” he said. “There are communities where British Muslims are deliberately not assimilating, are being taught to hate British society, and this is incubating radicalism. There’s actually a parallel system of sharia law courts in the U.K. that operate.”

“We may have generations of radical Islamists in the U.K., until the British government wakes up and stops the situation,” he warned.

Pollak pointed out that the United States has unassimilated religious communities with their own internal systems of government that live peaceably alongside their neighbors, such as the Amish and Jewish communities in upstate New York.

“It’s certainly true there are some communities in the United States that have not assimilated,” Fleitz agreed. “I’m not concerned about Amish or Jewish communities, but I will tell you that there are enclaves of Muslim communities in Michigan and Minnesota that concern me. We know that in Minnesota there’s a rising rate of measles because the community has not assimilated into the rest of the community, and is not vaccinating their children. This is wrong. This is a big problem.”

“The problem with these Muslim communities is that it is making them susceptible to this radical worldview that wants to destroy modern society, create a global caliphate, and impose sharia law on everyone on Earth,” Fleitz contended. “These other communities aren’t trying to do that. They’re peaceful religious communities.”

“Also, when we have immigrants coming to a country from another country, I think they need to learn the practices and laws of the country where they’re coming to, the country that is accepting them and serving as a refuge for them. I think when people come to their new home country, they should understand and learn about the laws of this new country. That’s not happening in the U.K.,” he said.

Pollak offered the converse observation that some of the worst terrorist murderers, such as the San Bernardino jihadis, appear to be fairly well-assimilated.

“We can have homegrown radical Islamist terrorists – and I don’t really think they’re homegrown, I think they’re inspired or directed by foreign Islamist terrorist organizations – but it’s this ideology of hate that either is being communicated to them over the Internet, or is being passed on to members of separated communities in the U.K. It’s the ideology we have to confront, and I think this problem is worse in these separate communities,” Fleitz said.

Fleitz argued that measures to hinder the ability of extremists to recruit and coordinate with the Internet should be explored, with due regard for civil liberties, but he is more concerned about “radical clerics and radical mosques who are promoting this type of hate and ideology firsthand.”

“I also want to stop these ISIS videos that we know homegrown radical Islamist terrorists are taking in, and it’s playing a role in radicalizing them,” he added.

“I think 9/11 was a wake-up call. You could just see how Republicans and Democrats in Washington were working together against the threat. Now we’re challenged by political correctness, and people who are in denial, and don’t want to the let the government take the steps it has to take to go after radical Islam,” Fleitz reflected.

“Whenever there’s a radical Islamic terrorist attack, we get these lectures about Islamophobia from our leaders, leaders in the U.K. I think that is really hobbling the ability of our government to go after this threat, and that’s unfortunate. I hope what happened in London will be a wake-up call, but I’m worried in a few weeks we’ll be lectured about Islamophobia again,” he said.

“Anyone who raises concerns about radical Islam seems to be tarred and feathered as an Islamophobe in this country. I’ll let the people who peddle this term give a better explanation, but that’s my experience,” he replied when Pollak asked for a precise definition of “Islamophobia.”

The Niceties Lose to the Necessities

June 5, 2017

The Niceties Lose to the Necessities, PJ MediaRichard Fernandez, June 4, 2017

— DM)

Feckless politicians have let things get to the point where all the remaining options are bad. By allowing the margin of superiority to slip, they are making the descent from the Marquess of Queenbury Rules to street fighting inevitable. Perhaps the most revealing illustration of this sad transition occurred during the recent London Bridge attack, when a taxi driver and eyewitness to the London Bridge terror attack described “how he tried to ‘ram’ the men who were killing innocent civilians . . . .”

Yet we brought it on ourselves. An unsustainable program of political correctness killed the very thing it swore to protect.

*****************************

Civility, like anything else, requires resources. U.S. troops in WWII generally did not have to loot to avoid starvation, often had enough manpower to guard POWs, and could afford a training mechanism that instilled and maintained discipline in the ranks. This made it feasible for them to observe a higher standard of humane behavior than most armies, inasmuch as such things are possible in war.

But kindness is a luxury on the battlefield, where survival takes priority over everything else, and first to be jettisoned in resource starvation.

The UK is running low on counter-terror resources. The Times of London reports:

[I]ntelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers … about 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat.

The British police simply don’t have enough men to watch an insurgent army of this size, and have had to cancel famous public events like the Changing of the Guards to release police from duties like crowd security or road closures. “The sad truth about the Government’s decision to deploy up to 5,000 troops on British streets is that it is an admission of failure,” wrote Robert Verkaik. In particular, it is a failure to anticipate the threat and to provide enough resources to maintain the required superiority which makes the civilities possible.

Not surprisingly, tolerance has become the first casualty of the new correlation of forces. The smiling British bobby has had to become more peremptory in the face of a deadly foe. British PM Theresa May, in a speech responding to the London Bridge attack, announced not only more regulations (including proposed restrictions on the Internet), but warned that things were reaching a tipping point:

We believe we are experiencing a new trend in the threat we face. As terrorism breeds terrorism and perpetrators are inspired to attack, not only on the basis of carefully constructed plots after years of planning and training, and not even as lone attackers radicalized online, but by copying one another and often using the crudest of means of attack.

The Lone Wolves — emboldened by success — are forming a pack, and the lurkers are coming out of the woods to pull down their larger but helpless victim.

When that happens, it’s No More Mr. Nice Guy.

May’s plan to regulate the Internet has the advantage of being easier to implement than watching 23,000 jihadis. When you can’t do what you should then you do what you can. The West is in the “Three Stooges” phase of terrorism policy: if Larry can’t hit Moe, he hits Curley Joe. Later they may in despair all hit each other. To be fair, it’s forced upon them by a relative lack of resources. Europe is beginning to admit it has doesn’t have enough hard force to deal with the new threats. Hence the reliance on candles, tweets, dimmed lights. It’s not virtue, it’s necessity. But when the candles stop working they will be forced to Plan B.

Feckless politicians have let things get to the point where all the remaining options are bad. By allowing the margin of superiority to slip, they are making the descent from the Marquess of Queenbury Rules to street fighting inevitable. Perhaps the most revealing illustration of this sad transition occurred during the recent London Bridge attack, when a taxi driver and eyewitness to the London Bridge terror attack described “how he tried to ‘ram’ the men who were killing innocent civilians”:

The driver, only known as Chris, told LBC Radio that he desperately tried to stop the attack.

“I said to the guy in my cab I was going to try and hit him, I was going to ram him.

“I turned around and tried, but he side-stepped me.

“I spun the cab round, I was about to ram one of them, but he side-stepped and three police officers came running towards them with their batons drawn.”

The old and the new stand frozen in time, captured by that image. The cabbie, prepared to use his two-ton vehicle as a weapon, represents the sad new.  The bobbies “running towards [terrorists] with their batons drawn” as the cab driver incredulously watches represent the gallant old. It has all the pathos of a First World War cavalry charge against a line of entrenchments on the Western front, of a kindly old order vainly struggling against extinction by a harsh, Terminator-type world of cold repression that governments by slow degrees will be forced to implement. How long before the taxi-ram, not the baton, becomes the new normal?

Yet we brought it on ourselves. An unsustainable program of political correctness killed the very thing it swore to protect.

Going to a Concert Isn’t Courageous, Resisting Terrorism is

June 4, 2017

Going to a Concert Isn’t Courageous, Resisting Terrorism is, The Point (Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 4, 2017

If your society is damaged enough that going out to a concert becomes an act of courage, you might as well be living in Pakistan or Iran. If the West doesn’t want to end its days courageously listening to black market music or sneaking drinks at home, it might be time to show true courage by defeating the Islamofascist hordes streaming every day from the burgeoning emirates and caliphates into the cities of civilization.

*****************************

Courage, bravery and defiance. Those are the words being used to describe another Ariana Grande concert in Manchester.

We have reached the sad state of affairs in which the media congratulates the citizenry for their “courage” in going to a concert or a nightclub. The highest possible human virtue is defined as “not giving in to fear”.

Living in denial of Islamic terrorism means giving in to fear. Taking it on is giving in to fear. It’s the old Orwellian formula so often used by Obama in which cowardice is courage and inaction is courageous restraint.

It is a very low bar that in formerly free nations that confronted Hitler and Stalin, going out is now an act of courage. It is a testament to how thoroughly Islamic terrorism has paralyzed its Western host societies. Going shopping after 9/11 or to a concert after Bataclan or the Manchester Arena bombing are not acts of courage. They’re attempts to restore normalcy.

The political elites of the West desperately seek to restore a normalcy that is out of reach after every single attack. That normalcy is also known as denial. There’s no courage in denial. There was no courage in the citizens of Paris pretending that the Nazi occupation did not exist. There was courage in Churchill’s call to resist Nazism.

There was courage in the citizens of London going about their routines under the shadow of the Luftwaffe because they were part of a society actively resisting the Nazis. There is no virtue in doing the same while letting the Islamofascists occupy London and Manchester.

If your society is damaged enough that going out to a concert becomes an act of courage, you might as well be living in Pakistan or Iran. If the West doesn’t want to end its days courageously listening to black market music or sneaking drinks at home, it might be time to show true courage by defeating the Islamofascist hordes streaming every day from the burgeoning emirates and caliphates into the cities of civilization.

Britain surrenders to Islam

June 4, 2017

Britain surrenders to Islam, American Thinker, Daren Jonescu, June 4, 2017

There has been a “potential act of terrorism” in London, in which potential terrorists potentially ran over potential infidels with a potential van, and apparently also stabbed potential victims and slashed some people’s potential throats.

In response to this potential act, the London police “shepherded” (the word repeated through the British news reports) hundreds of people through the streets with their hands over their heads.  No, those being forced to surrender were not the potential terrorists, but the potential victims.

For their own safety, you understand, the innocent citizens of one of history’s greatest nations, fountainhead of Western liberty, having been disarmed by their government, and while being continuously surveilled in all their daily activities by government cameras on every street corner, are now being murdered at will, and in quantity, by bloodthirsty peace-loving potential Muslims who have been allowed to occupy their country and live off their welfare state without limits – and the nanny state’s response is to demand that all those who haven’t yet been run over or slashed walk slowly where police can keep a close eye on them.

The most telling part is one report, on Sky News, explaining the video footage of people walking with their hands over their heads.  Asked by the reporter whether the police had demanded this, they say no, they simply thought that would be the “safest” posture.  And so hundreds of innocent people, knowing that killers were in the area, and not knowing whence the next attack might occur, were voluntarily assuming a posture of surrender.  That, in a nutshell, is the product of a generation of progressive propaganda, nanny-statism, and political correctness.  That’s the mindset of a people who have been trained to believe that their souls – not their physical survival, but their dignity – have no ultimate value.  Welcome to the brave new world.

The next step will come tomorrow, if not sooner: the state will begin issuing harsh warnings against any sort of “Islamophobic” backlash, such as feeling a little nervous when a group of Muslim men enters the restaurant where you are eating dinner or taking a “racist” second glance at a Muslim man behind the wheel of a van.

London is reputed to be the most surveilled city on Earth.  And of course, British progressives are just appalled by America’s backwardness in continuing to allow private citizens to own firearms.  The result of all that state-imposed safety-first paternalism is just what you see: Britons terrorized by religious fanatics with their own less “progressive” notions of paternalism and left with no means, whether moral or physical, of self-defense precisely when their government has ceased to care about defending them.

Oh, and all those liberty-crushing surveillance cameras?  They provide wonderful TV footage of mass murder for the six o’clock news, don’t they?